From 38012d56ff61003b2774b4ba99a8ee8bcba9e434 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: slaguru666 <111923774+slaguru666@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 14:11:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] R-277: n=3 is right for the redcap, and R-276 was wrong about why check-focus picks the pack size nearest an even fight. For the redcap that is n=3 at 28.0% against n=2's 73.4% -- correct, and also where focus fire is worth most. But the margin is 1.4 points and the scan is 400 runs: run across eight seeds it picks 3 seven times and 2 once, and the recorded gain would move 6.3 to 4.9 with it. R-276's explanation was wrong. Its table was measured against the CLEAN GROUND cut, which it never named. Against the frozen party a lone redcap is worth 0.4 rather than 6.1, because that party wins 98.9% and nothing shows against a ceiling. The power is worth most where the fight is in doubt -- 3.8 at n=2, 3.1 at n=3, nothing at either end. Not outnumbered. Undecided. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- docs/REVIEW_LOG.md | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md b/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md index 943b5df..7395375 100644 --- a/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md +++ b/docs/REVIEW_LOG.md @@ -6359,3 +6359,47 @@ power on and is wiped with it off — the opposite of the power's direction. Tha finding, it is two diverging streams: change one roll and every subsequent fight is a different fight. A single seed shows what happened, never what a rule is worth, which this log has now learned twice in one day and would have learned a third time here. + +## R-277 — n=3 is right for the redcap, and R-276's explanation of why was wrong twice over + +Asked whether `check-focus` records the right pack size for a redcap. The frozen party +against n of them, 1000 runs x 3 seeds: + +| n | spread | focus | focus gain | without NOT TIRED | the power is worth | +|---|---|---|---|---|---| +| 1 | 98.9% | 98.9% | 0.0 | 99.3% | 0.4 | +| 2 | 73.4% | 78.3% | 4.9 | 77.1% | **3.8** | +| 3 | **28.0%** | 34.3% | **6.3** | 31.1% | 3.1 | +| 4 | 3.7% | 7.3% | 3.6 | 4.2% | 0.6 | +| 5 | 0.3% | 0.7% | 0.4 | 0.5% | 0.2 | +| 6 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0 | + +**n=3 is correct, on the criterion the guard actually uses and on two others.** `pickSize` +takes the size nearest an even fight: |28.0 − 50| = 22.0 against n=2's 23.4. It is also +where focus fire is worth most (6.3, clear of its 1.4 noise), and it is one of the two +sizes where the creature's power does anything. + +**But the margin is 1.4 points and the scan is 400 runs.** Running `pickSize` as the guard +runs it across eight seeds: **n=3 seven times and n=2 once**. So the recorded pack size for +this creature is one seed in eight away from being 2, and the recorded gain would move 6.3 +to 4.9 with it. The baseline is right and it is not *robustly* right, which is a property of +a 1.4-point margin rather than a defect in the choice. + +**AND R-276'S WHOLE EXPLANATION WAS WRONG.** It said NOT TIRED "is a rule about being +outnumbered", from a table showing 6.1 points against one redcap and 0.1 against three. +Both figures were measured against **the CLEAN GROUND four-player cut**, which R-276 never +named, and against the frozen party the pattern inverts: a lone redcap is worth **0.4**, not +6.1, because that party wins 98.9% of the time and nothing can show an effect against a +ceiling. + +The real pattern is the one the guard's own `MEASURABLE` band already encodes: **the power +is worth most where the fight is in doubt** — 3.8 at n=2 and 3.1 at n=3, falling to nothing +at both ends. Not outnumbered. Undecided. I invented a mechanism that fitted two points from +an unnamed party, and it was wrong in the same shape as the `--mode` citation this morning: +a figure that is correct for the configuration I ran and stated as though it were general. + +**Three corrections to one entry in one day.** R-276 claimed a guard fought packs when it +fights solo, read the wipe column when the agents-down column was the one that moved, and +explained a power by a mechanism that does not hold. Each was found by somebody asking me to +act on it. The entry is worth keeping in that state rather than tidying: it is the clearest +example in this log of confident, internally consistent, repeatedly wrong.