movement ledger: fix two claims in the Batch-1/2 prose

- tfil is 4th of five on round wins, not last (ring is nominally 0.04 lower,
  ns) - the Batch-1 commit message overstates one word; the correction is
  recorded in the ledger rather than rewritten.
- the Batch-2 direct answer quoted three of four CIs excluding 0; it is four of
  four ([+0.04,+0.63], [+0.16,+0.60], [+0.27,+0.89], [+0.22,+0.72]).
- added the cleanest aggression isolation of Batch 1 (ring - ring_notemp, same
  engine and heat field, range weighting alone): +41.9 dmg/run, -0.11 wins/run,
  +12.8 pp incoming hit rate at 236 vs 395 px.

docs/movement_campaign.md

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ better.
 > ("melee A/B doc…"). The rules are therefore committed under a neighbour's
 > message — they are nonetheless dated before the data: no battle of Batch 1
 > had been launched when they were written, and Batch 1's session.json records
-> the same commit `1984a78` as the frozen-binary source.`)
+> the same commit `1984a78` as the frozen-binary source.
 
 1. **Primary metrics:** damage/run and ROUND WINS. Secondary/explanation only:
    damage taken/run, incoming hit rate (enemy hits ÷ enemy shots), achieved mean
@@ -163,6 +163,13 @@ primaries**, so the heat-field retune alone is not what makes `strafe` win
 (INFERRED: `ring_notemp` also differs from `tfil` in commit ticks and wall
 radiance, so this is evidence against, not a clean isolation).
 
+**The cleanest aggression isolation in the batch** is `ring` − `ring_notemp`
+(same engine, same retuned heat field, only the range-weighted tile draw
+differs, band 100–200): that lever alone is worth **+41.9 dmg/run** (150.1 vs
+108.2), **−0.11 wins/run** (1.18 vs 1.29) and **+12.8 pp** incoming hit rate
+(29.42% vs 16.67%) at 236 vs 395 px. Engaging harder converts into damage, never
+into wins, and pays with hits.
+
 **Mechanism (MEASURED, and the reason the win is a movement win):** in **216 of
 the 219 attributable runs**, our round-win count equals exactly the number of
 rounds in which the **opponent's death event** appears — round wins in this
@@ -477,9 +484,11 @@ must be named, `TR_MOVEMENT=strafe` at its shipped range (325 px) has the best
 pooled round-win rate of the five arms in Batch 2 (58.5%) and ties `strafe_notilt`
 in Batch 1, while `strafe_notilt` is the simpler arm (it has no range steering to
 mis-tune). It is better than the shipped `tfil` by a margin that survives the
-between-opponent spread: +0.33…+0.58 wins/run, 95% CIs excluding 0 in three of
-four measurements, 9/9 + 10/11 + 11/12 decisive opponents in favour, MDE 0.29–0.40
-vs observed 0.38–0.58. Rejecting "no change": `tfil`'s win share of 39–41% is
+between-opponent spread: +0.33…+0.58 wins/run, **all four measurements with a
+95% CI excluding 0** ([+0.04,+0.63], [+0.16,+0.60], [+0.27,+0.89], [+0.22,+0.72]),
+and 9/9, 10/12, 11/12 and 10/11 decisive opponents in favour, against an MDE of
+0.29–0.40 — i.e. every measurement sits at or above its own detection threshold.
+Rejecting "no change": `tfil`'s win share of 39–41% is
 **not** the best movement we have measured.
 
 ### The analyzer's full report (verbatim)