Deterministic screens
SCREEN BLOCKED
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 · unclassified; gates)
bicond: → bicon: (d=1 · unclassified; gates)
-
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).
A FRAGILE verdict blocks ratification. It rides into the
vote and no ballot count overrides it.
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.