The rule-bot table carries the third set now, which is the point of having a
rule bot at all: a full 50-level acceptance pass takes one second, so every
selection change can be checked against the previous one before any agent time
is spent. Blind rotations 0.24 → 0.12 → 0.14, worst streak 4 → 1 → 1, dead taps
zero throughout.
The band table shows all three rounds side by side, each against the levels it
actually played. Round 3 is reported as what it is: an unconfirmed hypothesis.
It raised contrast and held rotation depth, and the back band's rating did not
follow. On a rating that retests at 0.55 that settles nothing either way, so
the page says the two are indistinguishable and names the design reasons the
third set is the one being handed over — rather than quoting whichever number
makes the last change look good.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The round comparison was about to be wrong. levels/campaign-50-r2.json was
copied from levels/campaign-50.json to preserve "the set round 2 played", but
select-50 writes that path in place and several selection experiments ran
between the round and the copy. The file kept 28 of the 50 boards round 2 had
actually played and 46 of round 3's — so the comparison was scoring one round
against another round's levels, and it read as round 3 regressing.
Runs store the whole board and its campaign index, so a round is its own record
and cannot drift. round-set.mjs rebuilds it, the report uses that, and the
snapshot file is gone rather than left lying around looking authoritative.
With the rounds correctly matched, round 3 is not a regression and not an
improvement: back band 2.17 against round 2's 2.39, on a rating that retests at
0.55, which is not enough to separate seventeen levels. The report says that
rather than picking whichever reading flatters the change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The round accidentally ran every level twice, which turned into the most useful
thing it produced: 45 retest pairs on this exact set. 84% of them replayed the
identical action sequence, so the agent is near-deterministic and a second run
of a level buys almost nothing — the mechanical metrics retest at r = 1.00 for
that reason, not because they survived a hard test.
The ratings do not. Difficulty retests at r = 0.55 here, against the 0.93 this
project had on record from a smaller sample, and every pair that disagreed had
played the same trajectory: same moves, same outcome, different number. The
report now prints the reliability it measured rather than quoting the older
figure, and says which one it replaces.
Averaged by band over ~20 runs, though, the ratings finally track the curve —
2.00 / 2.05 / 2.40 with stuck at 1.21 / 1.15 / 1.74, where round 1 was a flat
line. So the rule is not "ratings are useless", it is "ratings are a band
statistic, never a per-level rank", and that is what the rules section says.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Round 1 played all fifty levels and came back with the mechanics clean and one
complaint repeated across the reports: 短暂以为转错了方向 — a turn that changed
nothing. That one is mechanical rather than perceptual, so it can be gated.
The first attempt gated `doubleDead`, and it was wrong. That counts dead states,
which scales with the state space: three-turn levels have ~187 reachable stuck
states and five-turn ones ~739, so a raw count made deep levels look eight times
worse when the rate is 2% against 5%. It would have erased every level past
three turns — the opposite of the brief, where turning is the signature and is
not to be rationed. The gate is `maxDeadTurns`, the longest run of turns before
something opens, at 1: one beat of suspense, then a release. Eleven of the fifty
shipped at 2.
Selection could not express the curve either. Spreading picks evenly over the
ranked pool returns whatever the pool is made of, and the pool is 88%
three-turn, so no weighting moved the distribution off {3: 46}. A quota per
depth states the curve outright, deepest first so the scarce end picks before a
family cap is spent on levels the shallow end has hundreds of.
Same rule bot, both sets: blind rotations 0.24 → 0.12, worst blind streak 4 → 1,
decisions unchanged at 10.3. The same amount to do, half the wasted motion.
Rotation now runs 1.8 / 3.0 / 4.1 across the bands against 1.8 / 3.0 / 3.5.
Verdicts are keyed by the board rather than by its id, because a reselect
re-issues ids from the ordinal and `c50-01-v05` is not the same board before and
after — the review sheet was one reselect away from printing one level's verdict
under another's thumbnail.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
