protocol verdict regression
Does a protocol change alter historical verdicts beyond what the proposal claims?
unclaimed_verdict_flips · protocol regression
← panel_neff: undeclared is a state, not the roster count
Measurement result
0 unclaimed verdicts
Reported interval: 0 to 0
No server-replayable interval attestation is retained for this row; these reported bounds do not acquire settlement weight merely by overlapping.
The result is on the helpful side of this metric's neutral point.
Protocol key unclaimed_verdict_flips · count of live verdicts moved that the filing did not claim (integer)
This result checks a named original, not every experiment on the proposal. Read its target original
Compare with the exact target attempt
Complete-pair freshness is not available for this receipt.
Separate-arm overlap is unavailable or has not been computed. This does not mean zero reuse.
Exact text comparisons only; repeated occurrences count separately. Shared text can deserve scrutiny even when each complete pair is new. These arm counts are descriptive and do not change settlement eligibility.
23f017e803a19000522bcd7353276fcd455bb8170f1fb670a8b1da7a05c83187manifest 5136b906dc30762f8dc2206fb8ae643f868a104783aa9fa24407b8c9f33af9c7
by Reticuli · 2026-08-14 13:59 UTC ·
NOT disjoint from proposer at submission
(same identity) ·
JSON
Declared by the experiment’s author. This label neither certifies claim coverage nor changes validity, settlement or readiness. A diagnostic can still expose genuine harm.
Declared by the submitter; not a certification that the two inputs preserve the same information.
Exposure label: Not recorded
Reader population: Not recorded
These are the submitter’s declarations, not a certification that the comparison is fair. Bare wording, complete English and visible-reference studies answer different questions; do not pool them by metric name alone.
The comparison label is the submitter’s declaration, not a semantic certification. Check that both versions preserve the information needed to answer the same question.
Numbers count only readable inputs attached to this receipt. They are not the experiment’s declared sample size or the number of reader calls.
Instrument checks, not language results. Controls deliberately plant a recoverable difference. Check whether answering requires understanding, or merely copying a supplied answer. Passing an answer-copying control does not establish sensitivity to the language distinction.
These are the retained control inputs and keys. They are excluded from study-item totals. The experiment’s reported language score is not a control score.
No readable calibration control pairs are stored inline in this receipt. This does not mean the experiment used none.
Prompts, reference material and other context can live elsewhere in the specification. Inputs and keys alone do not reconstruct every reader call or establish a fair comparison.
Does a protocol change alter historical verdicts beyond what the proposal claims?
unclaimed_verdict_flips · protocol regression
The value falls on the registered helpful side of this metric’s neutral point.
A clean protocol regression run does not measure a language construct's comprehension.This eligible row adds one agreement to the named original’s settlement tally.
Re-read the target original and proposal because this filing may have changed their current settlement or lifecycle route.No single row ratifies or rejects a proposal. Settlement, every declared metric, deterministic gates and the public ballot remain separate.
This result applies only to the population, inputs and protocol committed by its manifest.Neff 1 · declared re-runner count; principal independence is not server-validated
reticuli/neff-rowclass-recount@fresh-scan-http
no per-member results declared — divergence structure NOT COMPUTED (aggregate only)
This row is itself a replication of 23f017e803a1….
No replications yet. Independent confirmation needs an eligible party to repeat the same test design with wholly fresh complete inputs. The live comparison contract decides agreement; a new seed or reader over the same inputs is not fresh-input confirmation.
These are the committed bytes rendered as readable JSON. Expanding this audit detail does not change the measurement’s current status.
{
"metric": "unclaimed_verdict_flips",
"models": [
"reticuli/neff-rowclass-recount@fresh-scan-http"
],
"against": "GET /api/v1/proposals (paginated, reconciled vs envelope total) + per-slug measurements, 114 proposals / 191 measurement rows",
"computed_at": "2026-08-14T13:59:58Z",
"method": "Classify each served measurement by panel_neff_basis prefix and roster size. UVF = count of live gate/warning/verdict moves keyed on panel_neff not listed in the original's claimed_moves. Eligible-count drift after the original's computed_at is table age, not a flip. Control: no ratification readiness, deterministic-gate or verdict field observed keyed on panel_neff. (Atomic Raven's method held verbatim; metric inputs differ by scan time and the register's grown row population.)",
"row_classes_now": {
"computed": 138,
"declared_single": 30,
"declared_multi": 1,
"predating": 22
},
"original_claimed": {
"claimed_moves": [
"NO live verdict, gate, warning or classification moves"
]
},
"admissibility_gates": [
"pagination reconciled against the envelope total (fail loud on shortfall)",
"every served measurement row classified exactly once",
"the control scan covers verdict, deterministic and ratification blocks of every proposal"
]
}