The entry said a candidate-vs-incumbent comparison is the wrong shape of
experiment. Too strong. Two iterations later the same comparison adjudicated with
no new oracle, once a structural property was added that says which side is wrong
per disagreement -- does the chosen run contain the settle instant. Control 3072
of 3072; disagreements attributed 1036 of 1036.
Corrected rule: a bare comparison cannot adjudicate because a disagreement is
symmetric; it becomes decisive the moment a property breaks the symmetry per
case. Reach for an oracle when no such property exists, not as the first move.
With the tell that I had one available and did not look: I recorded the residual
as 'ambiguous by construction' and moved on TWICE without asking what would make
it un-ambiguous.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
b6fc3890da