Score allocation and recurrent-protection counterexamples

A protective global convention could multiply the designated group's scores by $b>1$, or could assign it a separate retention budget. Such a changed convention still does not prove a favorable task effect. Density and score allocation remain insufficient statistics for implemented performance, as in Psy01-A CheungPsy01A.

A named parameter that is not read by the update has no within-program effect. Likewise, classifying a pointwise striatal tensor as “recurrent” in a pruning-name predicate does not change the network topology of Proposition prop:topology.