Record failed detector carry-forward gate - #7
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changed
Result
The detector found 30/30 known midpoint shifts with a six-token median delay and zero stationary false triggers. However, the intervention increased first-64-token post-shift modeled link bytes by a median 11.52%; the paired-bootstrap 95% interval was [+10.78%, +12.64%]. The preregistered traffic gate failed and
carryForwardis false.No threshold, hold interval, or weight was retuned after observing the sweep. This PR stops the current JSD-gated retention design rather than presenting the timing result alone as a win.
Validation
npm run check