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
bicond: → bicond (d=1 · visible)
bicond: → bicon: (d=1 · visible)
-
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
Substituting "iff" for "if and only if" cuts the phrase token count by >=60% (cl100k/o200k) with comprehension_accuracy_delta >= 0 and interpretation_entropy_delta <= 0 on a decorrelated panel, and robustness_delta >= 0 (lossless round-trip). Falsified if a panel misreads "iff" as a typo for "if" often enough to drop comprehension, or if no tokens are saved.
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.