39.13 -- the tail rescale, and its verdict. NULL, and not for want of power:
12 of 12 pairs byte-identical, both programmes, same trajectories. The failing
tail is 0.034% of corpus value, so making it orderable cannot move a search.
Kept (free, and k54 needs the region orderable) but recorded as correct and
inert, not as a fix. It also corrects gvb's premise: zero exposure is NOT
beyond the inner loop's reach -- perturbing division ratios alone moves the
zero-exposure set on 6-12 of 12 trials at +-25%, and in the direction wanted
(harbor s1 8 -> 6 buried leaves).
39.14 -- what the factor actually rewards. 1/crink is the room's depth from
its daylit wall in storey-heights, so the variable is sound and its fail
boundary (1.62h = 4.86 m) agrees with 38.3's independently-derived frontage
bound. The two-sided gaussian on it is not: the near side penalises surplus
daylight that edge_cost and outside_edge_cost already bill at 100 and 133.3
per m2, it has never once produced a fail (it needs crink > 21.5; corpus max
is 3.95), and its peak sits at a 2.5 m deep room -- an ordinary 4 m room
scores 0.395 and the corpus's realised median depth is 2.95 m. The search
built what it was paid for. A/B at pilot budget is underpowered rather than
null: the arms reach different layouts but the same fail counts.
39.15 -- the magic numbers. A sigma is not a preference, it is an acceptance
interval target +- 2.1460*sigma, so it decides failures. The blanket
hypothesis does not survive -- programme-house reaches 1 fail, structural on
two of three seeds. The specific one does, and it shows 39.1's CLEAN verdict
answered a weaker question: sweeping a spec's tolerance box asks whether SOME
shape is feasible, and all 67 pass, but at the DECLARED target area and aspect
harbor needs 7 corner rooms and maple 6, while health-centre and
programme-house need none. Within-programme, those codes fail 62% and 78% of
their instances against 26% and 31% for all others. Three declared quantities
are jointly contradictory and nothing said so; the resolution is an author
decision, not a retuned constant.
Also recorded: 82% of size fails are rooms larger than target, which is the
same shape of double-charge but explicitly NOT the same case -- size's upper
bound is the main brake on growth and must not be removed on the analogy.
405 passed, 72 skipped.
Closes homemaker-py-9gj, homemaker-py-u5q.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
