Offline four-arm pipeline: extracts the 49-bit draft spec + a 4-bit horizon
one-hot (53 bits) from the DrussGT fixtures, derives fact-based quadrant labels
(side vs the naive guess, magnitude vs the TRAIN median), trains the validated
`tm_diag/tm_core.nim` fresh PER ROUND with a fit / calibrate / eval within-round
split, applies each predicted quadrant's out-of-sample conditional-median offset
and measures the residual angular error. 50 clauses, N=64, s=3.0, 5 epochs
(verdict identical at 1 and 10). Estimated hit = |residual| < atan(18px/range).
POOLED (tr_drussgt_vs_modularbot + _shield, N~9.1-9.4k per horizon):
h arm med|err| p90|err| hit%
15 naive 4.08 14.24 39.3
15 TM 4.81 13.53 29.0
15 shuffled 4.45 14.58 34.3
15 turn-only 4.13 14.10 37.1
20 naive 6.81 21.60 28.2
20 TM 7.61 20.85 19.2
25 naive 9.71 29.13 20.9
25 TM 10.33 28.63 13.1
30 naive 12.62 36.12 16.4
30 TM 13.09 35.17 10.5
Delta hits (pp): TM-naive **-10.3 / -9.0 / -7.8 / -5.9**;
**TM-turn -8.1 / -5.1 / -2.0 / -0.9** (h=15/20/25/30).
Median miss: TM is WORSE by +0.5..+0.8 deg. p90: marginally better by 0.5-1.3 deg.
So it pulls in the TAIL but not the typical miss.
Shuffled control: quadrant accuracy 22.9-24.8% ~= 25% chance, and dHit <= 0 at
every horizon -> NO LEAK. (The mild negative is the expected cost of applying a
noisy offset, not leakage.)
THE MECHANISM, and it is the important part: **the learning is REAL - the TM gets
the side right 59.6-61.0% vs 50% (quadrant 34-35% vs 25% chance; turn-only
53-56%) - but it does not translate into hits because the per-quadrant
conditional-median offsets (~4-16 deg for "big") are FAR LARGER than the body
half-angle (~2.6-3.4 deg at typical range).** The naive guess is essentially
UNBIASED (the median signed error is 0.00 deg at every horizon, from the headroom
study), so its error is centred on the target; shifting an already-centred
distribution away from zero DESTROYS near-target mass. That is why the turn-only
arm loses too (-2.2 to -5.8 pp): any constant shift hurts.
VERDICT AS IMPLEMENTED: **STOP. There is no case for building the new TM gun on
this evidence.**
NOT YET DISTINGUISHED, and worth one cheap test before the idea is declared dead:
whether this is a STRUCTURALLY dead application (no shift can help, because the
baseline is unbiased and the correction is coarser than the target) or merely a
MISCALIBRATED one (the offset was fitted to minimise the conditional MEDIAN of
the error, which is NOT the objective - hits are maximised by the shift that
maximises P(|error| < body), typically a SMALLER shift or none at all on a dense
near-zero distribution). That distinction decides whether the whole "TM predicts
the enemy's position" premise is dead or only this instantiation of it.
Caveats: DrussGT-only; the enemy's movement is a closed-loop response to our
CURRENT movement so the numbers are conditional on how we move now; offline
observation is perfect every tick while live we see the enemy only on scans, so
all of this is an UPPER BOUND. The bullet block was proxy-based (no gun heading or
power is recorded in the fixtures) - INFERRED, and stated as such rather than
silently dropped.
