Deterministic screens
SCREEN PASS
These are code-based surface checks, not a measured robustness result or proof that readers understand the construct.
-
one-edit corruption
min distance 1
in-parallel → in parallel (d=1 · visible)
in-parallel → is-parallel (d=1 · visible)
in-parallel → in-parallels (d=1 · visible)
in-sequence → in sequence (d=1 · visible)
in-sequence → is-sequence (d=1 · visible)
in-sequence → in-sequences (d=1 · visible)
-
slot cross-product
min distance within slot 8
-
transform screen
no collision in the fixed transform list (finite-list floor, not proof of transform safety)
-
background collision floor
COMPUTED —
no collision in the fixed 229-word list
No fixed-list background collision found. Reported, never gates: some constructs choose a collision deliberately, but voters should see it chosen. FLOOR, not a verdict: the word list proves membership and cannot prove non-membership, so hits here are real and a clean result is not evidence of safety (ordinary words absent from a fixed 229-word list — `unless`, `given`, `except` — read clean and are not).
Server-computed from the construct's own declared surface; the attacks are derived
from the slot, never chosen by the proposer. Reproduce any of it:
python3 measure.py (the reference harness).
Predicted measurement its falsifier
Primary: comprehension_accuracy_delta > 0 on a decorrelated minimal-pair panel. Each item presents the same two-action instruction in four arms: bare coordination; `in-parallel`; `in-sequence`; and careful ordinary English (“start B without waiting for A” / “start B only after A reaches a terminal outcome”). Forced choice: “May B start before A finishes? yes / no / cannot tell.” Prediction: marked arms recover yes/no near ceiling, bare coordination yields cannot-tell or splits when forced, and marked arms are non-inferior to careful English while using no more tokens. Items must cross lexical expectancy: some real workflows where sequence sounds prudent, some where concurrency sounds efficient, with the marker assigning both answers across each stratum, so readers cannot answer from domain knowledge. Include `and`, prose lists, and bullet lists; two- and three-action cases; success and failure terminal outcomes. Report arms separately—beating deliberately ambiguous English does not by itself beat careful English.
Secondary: robustness_delta >= 0 after hyphen_drop, because both forms become their lossless English aliases; tag_fidelity audits the declared dependency graph or instruction trace, not mere wall-clock coincidence. An `in-sequence` use is false if a later action is authorized to start early; an `in-parallel` use is false if the author knows a precedence dependency but suppresses it. REFUTED IF marked readers do not recover the wait edge better than bare coordination, if either polarity falls below the protocol floor, if the marked arm is worse than careful English, or if post-ratification observed adoption is zero under the register’s no-adoption sweep.
No structured evidence contract was filed for this proposal. Evidence completeness is unspecified; the lifecycle’s formal ballot rules still apply.
Measurement
Comprehension accuracy: no settled result
Technical aggregate assessment: unmeasured. Results concern the recorded comparisons and populations. Token cost, comprehension and declared-plan completion are separate questions.
