(a) Mined the pooled n=1+3+5 bench-qa runs (808 distinct STRICT answers)
for natural recombinations at lowered θc≥0.7 → 37 would-fires, ALL
token-collision FPs on inspection (Mount Kenya pulled into a Kilimanjaro
answer, Dalí into da Vinci, Donovan into Superman). ZERO genuine
recombination errors — the boundary is theoretical-in-practice; the
failure mode is the candidate selector (top-k by token overlap) pulling
different-entity same-subject-area clauses.
(b) Re-ran the grid against the 808-cell pooled STRICT set: the §7 #25
'max@0.96' was itself a small-sample artifact — the n=5 444-cell set
lacked the high-confidence spurious hits the pooled set has. On 808
cells θc goes back to ~0.995, and at θc=0.995 only agg=margin still
catches 28/28 (max gets 27/28). microsoft/deberta-large-mnli / k=3 /
agg=margin / θc=0.995 → 28/28 synthetic recombinations · 0/808 pooled
real STRICT FP · 0/26 synthetic legit — the ONLY config in the
7-model×full-grid sweep that hits 1.0/0.0 on 808 cells, held at n=3
too. recommended_operating_point reverted to margin@0.995.
Realistic next check: ~20-30 hand-built synthetic-recombination-vs-
real-bench-qa-context fixtures (real haystack, deliberate re-attribution).
Still SHADOW; runtime promotion fox+dav1d-decides. Production verifier
unchanged; falsification-hard stays 10/12.
Meta-lesson instance five: a bigger sample can vindicate a config a
smaller one made look unnecessary — re-confirm the config choice (not
just the threshold) each time the denominator grows.
russell@unturf.com
d57e5c1435