Follow-up measurement corrects the first draft of §38 in two ways.
1. Harbor-house's floor is 15 fails (evolved-3M-nols-3, 1.7M evals), not the
30-40 I quoted from §13.11's 20k-budget runs. Frontage deficit predicts the
COST of solving, not impossibility: ~150x budget gap between a
frontage-short and a frontage-surplus programme. Table corrected.
2. Zero-exposure is only half the mechanism, and not the dominant half.
Splitting the deletion test by lit vs buried shows a WELL-DAYLIT corridor
(q_crink=0.736) is still worth x4.06 to delete. Cause: value_circulation=50
vs value_inside=300, so merging corridor into room is a flat x6 gain, while
'level N not connected' costs only x0.5. Break-even needs 0.5^k < 50/300,
i.e. k > 2.58 -- severing must cost at least 3 fails and costs 1. Net x3.0
predicted, x4.06 measured. The objective is net-positive on severing the
spine even when the circulation is perfectly lit, which explains why both
'level N not connected' fails survive in the best layout after 1.7M evals.
Adds fitness.quality_uncrinkliness crinkliness_mode (EXPERIMENTAL, default
"urb" = stock hard 0.0, byte-identical: 336 passed vs 331 before, same 7
pre-existing fixture failures). A/B harness ab_crinkliness_mode_ssz.py shows
none of the three modes removes the incentive, and the lit column is 3/8 under
every mode including stock -- clean isolation of the two mechanisms.
Filed homemaker-py-2v1 (P0) for the pricing fix; ssz/hxi now depend on it.
Acceptance test recorded up front: harbor must reach 15 fails in materially
fewer than 1.7M evals AND without either not-connected fail.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
50b5cfd476