Rebalance #4359's own ledger at unchanged kappa 0.0023: explicit ranks shrink to 2^268300549 (complex) and 2^14664 (BIT) with all 54 predicates strict (no new κ)

research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+# Rebalancing #4359's ledger: far smaller explicit ranks at the same κ
+
+**Claim type:** an exact parameter rebalancing inside zxv's
+[#4359](https://github.com/CrocSwap/integer-mult-bounds/pull/4359) ledger, with certified
+explicit ranks. **No new κ:** κ stays at #4359's 0.0023, and #4359 is not accepted. This
+answers the open question of my [#4410](https://github.com/CrocSwap/integer-mult-bounds/pull/4410).
+
+## Observation
+
+In #4359's `controller/outer_parameters.py` (head `da637c87`, SHA256 prefix `af26f4ff`), the two
+compiler savings enter the 54-predicate outer ledger in only one place each:
+
+- **The complex uniform saving.** It appears only in `new_complex_uniform_saving_above_b`, as
+  `0.002304 − b`.
+- **The BIT saving.** It appears only in `actual_bit_above_effective`, as `bit_saving − a` with
+  `a = 0.0023025`. It reaches that predicate through the cover fallback `C1 < C0` and the atom
+  conversion `a_BIT = (1 − 3/1000)·C1 + (3/1000)·a_old`.
+
+The nine outer cost rows do not depend on either saving. Elsewhere, #4359 quotes the savings only
+descriptively: `FINITE-TEMPLATE-CLOSURE.md` computes its constants from whichever finite template
+is chosen. #4359 picked 0.002304 and 0.00276, far above what the ledger needs. Because the rank
+exponent `H1` grows like `1/δ²`, where `δ` is half the gap between the tested mixed saving and
+the uniform saving, that choice is what makes the ranks astronomical.
+
+## Rebalanced choice
+
+| Parameter | #4359 | Here |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `b` | 0.002303 | 0.00230255 |
+| complex uniform saving | 0.002304 | 0.0023026 |
+| BIT `C0` (before cover) | 0.00276 | 0.002311 |
+| BIT `C1` (after cover) | 0.00275 | 0.00231 |
+| exact ordinary BIT saving | 0.0027418653797 | 0.0023031853797 |
+| admitted BIT saving | 0.0027 | 0.002303 |
+| cover prime rule | `q > 2.56·10⁷ N⁵` | `q > 2.56·10⁸ N⁵` |
+
+All 54 ledger predicates stay strictly positive. The tightest is `stop`, at 10⁻⁸ and unchanged. Next come
+`(1−stop)b − a` and `uniform − b`, both about `5·10⁻⁸`. The BIT conversion conditions also hold: `atom > a_BIT > admitted`,
+`atom < 1 − a_BIT`, and a strict fallback moment. The nine outer margins are unchanged, so κ
+stays 0.0023.
+
+## Ranks
+
+The superpotentials are certified at #4359's unchanged tested savings, 0.002305 and 0.002769.
+Ranks use #4405's refined induction, which my #4410 checked:
+
+| Family | #4359 | #4405 | **rebalanced** |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Complex | `2^276540184361` | `2^1546084442` | **`2^268300549`** |
+| BIT | `2^6552928412` | `2^42843607` | **`2^14664`** |
+
+The BIT exponent drops by a factor of about 2,900 from #4405's, and the complex exponent by a
+factor of 5.8. The verifier also recomputes both earlier columns from their own formulas, as
+controls.
+
+## Transfer-audit functional checks
+
+The 19 functional checks in #4359's `transfer-audit/outer_transfer_audit.py` are also transcribed.
+They include `new_uniform_complex_above_selected_b`, `actual_ordinary_BIT_above_effective`, the
+`λ` gaps and the guards. All 19 are positive both at #4359's values and at the rebalanced ones.
+
+## Transcription control
+
+The ledger is transcribed, with credit to #4359, and parameterized by `b` and the two savings.
+At #4359's values it reproduces the nine published margins exactly, from main transform
+0.00230197698 to microbox 77.00004, and all 54 predicates. It also reproduces #4359's exact BIT
+conversion, 27418653797/10¹³.
+
+## Not covered
+
+- **Every hypothesis of #4359:** native closure, adapters, the delayed cover, and the precision
+  and storage closure. Those constants must be recomputed for these different finite templates,
+  exactly as #4359 requires for its own.
+- **The 13 historical-endpoint predicates** of the inherited 63-predicate ledger. #4405 reports
+  that they compare only κ against earlier endpoints, which this rebalance leaves unchanged.
+- **An actual winning template.** None is materialized.
+
+## Reproduce
+
+```sh
+python3.12 -B scripts/research_package.py --package research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance --check-only
+python3.12 -B scripts/research_package.py --package research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance
+```
+
+The verifier prints `PASS_PR4359_LEDGER_REBALANCE` in about one second, using only the standard
+library.
+
+## Open next questions
+
+1. **How small can the complex rank get at κ = 0.0023?**
+   - *Why it matters:* the complex tested saving can rise toward the root 0.00230509, and `b`
+     toward `a`.
+   - *First step:* jointly optimize `(t, b, uniform)` under the ledger.
+
+## Credit
+
+- The construction, ledger and invoices are zxv's (#4359).
+- The refined induction is 1337isnot1337's (#4405).
+- Theorem 1G is Jacob Alan Sussman's (#4268).
+
+Prepared by Ryanson Jonathan with substantial Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5) assistance.
+Apache-2.0.

research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance/SOURCES.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": 1,
+  "base_commit": "12fa8c5c844be21bfefb38a19503fbd867a11244",
+  "files": [
+    {
+      "path": "certificates/selected-result.json",
+      "usage": "provenance",
+      "git_blob": "b1fea0c94436b236cc2b7d41a7be032811b94c81",
+      "sha256": "bb2eaa58647b353f88d0aec2eafb9d30df1be53589231b23e12ceef3e4bad129"
+    },
+    {
+      "path": "docs/research/agent-task-catalog.json",
+      "usage": "provenance",
+      "git_blob": "64bfc5af6709ed9811171e0a2108f05e1219cb65",
+      "sha256": "352a6184713b8843d96fd2c2071eb7aeaa655906b7c51d45ad444912666c8a96"
+    }
+  ]
+}

research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance/TASK.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": 1,
+  "task_id": "independent-moment",
+  "priority_revision": 7,
+  "base_commit": "12fa8c5c844be21bfefb38a19503fbd867a11244",
+  "original_card": {
+    "id": "independent-moment",
+    "question": "Does a new paid-profile or mixture-ceiling claim have independent source-bound coverage of its actual changed ledger?",
+    "starting_points": [
+      "docs/research/research-family-status.md",
+      "certificates/selected-result.json",
+      "research/staged544-mixed-fourth-entry/README.md",
+      "research/staged-fourth-mixture-ceiling/README.md",
+      "research/r437-two-window-carrier/README.md"
+    ],
+    "methods": [
+      "Independently reconstruct one changed paid ledger or pooled dual with exact source and model binding.",
+      "Check a genuinely uncovered moment implication with a different enclosure method and semantic controls."
+    ],
+    "acceptance_gate": "Demonstrate independence, source binding, positive cases and semantic failure controls. Name the existing checks and the missing coverage. More digits or another equivalent evaluation of an unchanged root is not by itself new verification coverage.",
+    "first_step": {
+      "command": [
+        "python3",
+        "-B",
+        "scripts/research_baseline.py"
+      ],
+      "expected": "PASS_RESEARCH_BASELINE_BINDINGS_ONLY",
+      "inspect": "Choose one uncovered implication in #4088 literal mixed fill, #4091 pooled dual/model binding or #4067 changed frame/host bill. #4091 pins an earlier #4088 head: validate word, capacity and stock equivalence before applying that ceiling to the later fill.",
+      "scope": "Source-binding orientation only; no scientific replay, theorem acceptance or supplier admission. Budget any heavy replay separately."
+    },
+    "first_experiment": "Independently reconstruct one changed ledger or pooled certificate with a positive case and a semantic failure control. Compare exact sources and name what existing checks miss. Keep this separate from supplier-boundary-audit (ordinary/outer dispatch) and uniform-transfer-audit (all-size proof). Stop after the chosen implication; more digits of an unchanged root are not additional mechanism coverage.",
+    "bottleneck_link": "Independent pricing prevents unsupported frontier claims and can reveal genuine accounting slack.",
+    "allowed_variations": [
+      "Reconstruct either a source ledger or a numeric enclosure with a different method."
+    ],
+    "scope_change_triggers": [
+      "Importing the primary function and calling its output independent verification.",
+      "Calling an aggregate histogram or source archive an independently accepted physical supplier."
+    ],
+    "overlap_terms": [
+      "independent moment",
+      "rank histogram",
+      "exact enclosure",
+      "2979",
+      "rank7 joint endframes",
+      "paired extraction",
+      "joint lowering",
+      "4088",
+      "4091",
+      "4067",
+      "staged544-mixed-fourth-entry",
+      "staged-fourth-mixture-ceiling",
+      "r437-two-window-carrier"
+    ],
+    "existing_checks": [
+      {
+        "scope": "PR #4088: mixed local/owner/phase ledger and moment reported.",
+        "evidence": "research/staged544-mixed-fourth-entry/README.md",
+        "remaining": "Independent binding of changed construction to paid histogram, distinct from full admission.",
+        "status": "author-checked",
+        "source_commit": "72d7efc181edb21806a878f174847c96dd410ab0",
+        "selected_record_sha256": "bb2eaa58647b353f88d0aec2eafb9d30df1be53589231b23e12ceef3e4bad129"
+      },
+      {
+        "scope": "PR #4091: sharp pooled ceiling proposed for fixed THREE/FOUR words and inventory.",
+        "evidence": "research/staged-fourth-mixture-ceiling/README.md",
+        "remaining": "Validate dual, exhaustive pattern scope and exact source equivalence before applying to newer fills.",
+        "status": "author-checked",
+        "source_commit": "a29bdd8f56cd18b805917775cdec09ff935eddc4",
+        "selected_record_sha256": "bb2eaa58647b353f88d0aec2eafb9d30df1be53589231b23e12ceef3e4bad129"
+      },
+      {
+        "scope": "PR #4067: paid (2,2) to (1,3) exchange and fixed OQ4 host reported.",
+        "evidence": "research/r437-two-window-carrier/README.md",
+        "remaining": "Independent full cost delta; remaining caller/precision/stock obligations are separate.",
+        "status": "author-checked",
+        "source_commit": "a95f11c52e3ca1e4c5171b3c20d8f4b0815aee2e",
+        "selected_record_sha256": "bb2eaa58647b353f88d0aec2eafb9d30df1be53589231b23e12ceef3e4bad129"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "scope_status": "refined",
+  "actual_scope": "Rebalance #4359's own outer ledger to the smallest convenient compiler savings at unchanged kappa 0.0023 and recompute the explicit template ranks.",
+  "scope_change_reason": "Follow-up to #4410's open question; the explicit ranks were set by unnecessarily large compiler savings.",
+  "bottleneck_link": "#4359's finite uniform templates are specified by these ranks; smaller ranks shrink every derived constant.",
+  "budget_minutes": 30,
+  "stop_rule": "Stop at the ledger and ranks; do not re-run inherited ledgers or native checks.",
+  "outcome": "completed",
+  "evidence": "verify.py: transcription reproduces #4359's margins/predicates; rebalanced choice keeps all 54 predicates strict; ranks 2^268300549 (complex, from 2^1546084442) and 2^14664 (BIT, from 2^42843607). The 19 outer_transfer_audit functional checks stay positive.",
+  "author": "Ryanson Jonathan, with Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5) assistance",
+  "ai_assistance": "Substantial Claude Code (Claude Opus 5.5) assistance; no independent human review.",
+  "open_questions": [
+    {
+      "question": "How small can the complex rank get at kappa 0.0023?",
+      "why_it_matters": "The tested saving can approach the root and b can approach a.",
+      "first_step": "Jointly optimize (t, b, uniform) under the ledger.",
+      "blocked_by": "None."
+    }
+  ]
+}

research/pr4359-ledger-rebalance/VERIFY.json

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+{
+  "schema_version": 1,
+  "status": "ready",
+  "python": "3.12",
+  "requirements": [],
+  "inputs": [],
+  "commands": [
+    {
+      "argv": [
+        "{python}",
+        "-B",
+        "{package}/verify.py"
+      ],
+      "timeout_seconds": 120,
+      "checks": "Transcribed #4359 ledger reproduces nine published margins, 54 predicates and the BIT conversion; rebalanced b/uniform/BIT savings keep all 54 predicates and BIT conversion/fallback strict; certified superpotentials; #4359/#4405 ranks reproduced as controls; rebalanced ranks 2^268300549 (complex) and 2^14664 (BIT)."
+    }
+  ]
+}