Manuscript Psy01-A@1 · Psy01-A.tex · section · 94477fa3
Reported observations are not theorem premises
Comparison with the supplied observations and code audit › Reported observations are not theorem premises · lines 1891–1959
Psy01-A@1#tab:reported
The following values are taken from the supplied manuscript, not from a new computation.
reported observations and their admissible interpretation.
| Setting | Reported quantity | Interpretation retained here |
|---|---|---|
Early density 10\% | Visual 99.9\%, voice 50.1\%, cue drop 50.3\% | Partial loss of successful task switching in this run; not complete mathematical cue invariance. |
Early density 20\% | Both tasks approximately 100\%; cue drop approximately 99.9\% | Successful endpoint cue use; contradicts an asserted low-cue bound applying to all densities at or below twenty percent. |
Early density 90\%, late removal 50\% | Continuous-sweep ambiguity 98.9\%; discrete-arm ambiguity 53.8\% | The same nominal controls do not identify the same trained checkpoint. The discrepancy requires a training/provenance audit. |
| Continuous peak locations | At early 40,70,90\%, late peaks at 10,60,50\% | The reported peaks are not globally increasing across these three settings. They do not prove an increasing maximizer curve. |
The midpoint-cue evaluation is deterministic for fixed weights and fixed test inputs because it uses zero stress. Consequently, the two reported ambiguity values at cannot be different Monte Carlo estimates of the same fixed-checkpoint midpoint accuracy. They can arise from different fine-tuning trajectories, checkpoints, or evaluation inputs.
The supplied code permits such a training-trajectory difference: the continuous sweep and the discrete branches consume a shared global random stream at different points.
At , the continuous sweep still performs ten additional fine-tuning epochs. Its zero-pruning entry is therefore not the saved early-stage checkpoint. It is a further-trained comparison baseline.