Round 3 tested one hypothesis from round 2's data: levels the agent rated 3
carried 59% more 反差 than the rest, so select for it. With both rounds now at
~100 runs, the answer is in and it is no. The back band went from 2.39 ± 0.10 to
2.19 ± 0.08, roughly two standard errors apart, and the levels averaging 2.5 or
better fell from 11 to 6. Contrast is real and it does correlate with being
rated harder; selecting on it does not produce harder levels.
The low retest reliability does not rescue the change either — r = 0.55 limits
ranking one level against another, not the mean of eighteen levels measured a
hundred times.
So round 2's levels are the ones handed over, rebuilt from its runs via
round-set --emitCampaign. select-50 cannot reproduce them: the pool it drew
from has been rebuilt since, so the same flags now return different levels. The
runs are the record.
Rule bot on the shipped set: 50/50 cleared, dead taps 0.00, blind rotations
0.12, worst blind streak 1. 198 tests pass.
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 sheet told the reviewer that difficulty and stuck were "the only two
ratings that retest reliably (r = 0.93 / 0.85)". On this set, with 50 retest
pairs to measure against, they are 0.55 and 0.45 — so the line was telling the
reviewer to trust the one number that had just failed. It now computes both
from the round in hand and says the ratings are readable by band only.
The complaints it quoted were round 1's, written about levels this edition no
longer contains. They are pulled from the round's own reports now.
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>
refit-weights regresses the weights select-50 scores with against what agents
actually experienced, so a round of play is a flag on the next selection rather
than an edit. Ridge, because seven collinear features on fifty levels otherwise
hand back large coefficients that cancel.
Most of the work here is in refusing to produce a number. The response averages
the difficulty rating with two continuous measures of the same thing, and a
component with no spread is dropped by name instead of being silently averaged
in as zeros — which is what the first version did, reporting R² = 0.75 for a
fit that never saw a rating. When the rating is flat the script now says so and
says what the remaining fit is really measuring, which is board size.
legibility() asks what it costs to know what you may tap: how far the eye must
follow the cheapest free piece, and how many pieces are held by somebody their
line never touches. It was built to explain why ratings came back flat. It does
not — it correlates -0.02 with them — so it stays a measurement, printed on the
review sheet beside the longest route on the board, and gates nothing.
prototype-d5 takes --seedFrom so a wide sweep shards across cores.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The deep-lock construction cannot go below three turns, so it cannot supply an
opening band — every level it makes lands mid-difficulty and the curve comes
out flat. harvest-easy pulls the shallow end from the shipped v0.5 set, but
only the 3% of it that holds up: 568 of 1000 need no rotation at all and 51
more are clearable by tapping at random, which is what the monkey threshold is
for. 33 levels survive, at one and two turns.
select-50 scores candidates on mechanical features only, spreads the pick
evenly across that range, and caps any one route grammar at 36% so the campaign
cannot quietly become one template repeated — the shipped 1000 turned out to be
thirty. Weights are a flag, so refitting them from a round of agent ratings is
a re-run rather than an edit.
The result is a curve rather than a plateau: difficulty score 3.85 / 6.24 /
7.60 across the three bands, rotations 1.8 / 3.0 / 3.5, and every level keeps
three or more opening choices with a show of at least a second.
The 50 register as a playable campaign edition, so review happens in the real
game; docs/review-50.html is the handover sheet, one card per level with the
opening position drawn from the solver rather than sketched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
