Claude (auto-RE)
530555de9f
Four rules from 21 units invites the coincidence objection, so run the identical sweep against the Weapon/Shell capture, which has COMPLETE coverage (126 records). It finds no sibling rule at all: the one 100%-agreement candidate has a single distinct value and is really a constant default. Weapon defaults vary per record exactly as unit defaults do, so "defaults are computed" is general while "defaults come from a sibling field" is not. Size_Y <- Size_X survives, and is now checked at the raw-token level rather than through the sub-record merge: e105, f105 and f101 each declare Size_X/Size_Z/ Size_Radius and no Size_Y, and each reads back its own Size_X at runtime. The two two-unit hypotheses are demoted to coincidence-not-excluded. Also records a negative for planning: Stage 01, the only other reachable stage, adds four uncaptured units that are variants of already-captured ones, so it would re-measure rather than test the rules. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>