Adds the kimi-k3 and codex-spark batches, so the rotation counters are now
compared across four independent runs of three models from three vendors on
the fixed board: 17 of 18 levels agree exactly, triple for triple.
The clean test-retest (same model, same harness, same board, run twice) also
corrects two earlier readings taken from data that had a board-format change
mixed in. Difficulty ratings reproduce at r = 0.93 rather than 0.63 — the
earlier low figure was the format change, not the metric — so an agent can be
trusted to rank 1000 levels by difficulty even though its absolute scale may
be offset. And the mechanical counters are highly reproducible rather than
deterministic: 0.82-0.92, not the 1.00 the confounded pair suggested.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
design-review.html is the gameplay and UI read on the shipped campaign, with
boards rendered from the repo's own geometry rather than redrawn.
bench-reliability.html asks which of the bench's numbers are worth acting on,
and answers it by running the same 18 levels twice under identical conditions.
The mechanical rotation counters reproduce (r = 0.82-0.92) and three different
models agree on them level for level, so they measure the level rather than
the player — a 12-second rule-bot sweep gets the same answer as hours of
model time. Difficulty and stuck ratings also hold up (r = 0.93 / 0.85), but
the ratings for rotation, clarity and fun do not (0.32 / 0.19 / 0.56): asking
a model whether rotation matters is noise, while counting blind rotations is
not.
Every figure is computed from bench/runs by build-bench-report.mjs; nothing in
the page is hand-written, so it can be regenerated as runs accumulate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
