SirRoboGarage/docs/ram_floor_exhaustion_ab.md

# j162 — the FIRING FLOOR: exhaustion measurement + a re-sized A/B proposal

**No battle, server, GUI or A/B was started for this job.** Both knobs remain
default-`0.0`; `out/ModularBot` was not rebuilt. Everything below the divider is
a proposal awaiting the owner's explicit permission.

---

## MEASURED (`common_libs/tests/measure_ram_exhaustion`, offline, state only)

Same corpus as j160: **8149 closed-loop recordings / 35163 rounds / 34.46M
ticks**. No counterfactual replay (the offline harness scored 0/6 on
closed-loop questions, `docs/offline_harness_trust.md`).

### 1. We die BROKE, and it is a death event — not a state we sit disabled in

* **21865 rounds (61.2%) end with self energy crossing 0**; 99.0% of rounds end
  in *some* death. Energy on the last tick we were alive:
  **median 0.83, mean 2.50, p90 8.90, max 24.83**.
  55.9% of self-deaths at <=1, 84.2% at <=5, 92.8% at <=10, **100% at <=20**.
* Time at energy <= 0 before the round ends: **median 1 tick** (p90 18). The
  round ends on the crossing tick. The 1.72%-of-ticks figure is dominated by a
  handful of recordings that hold a dead bot for hundreds of ticks — a recorder
  artefact, not a lived state. **There is no recoverable disabled window to
  defend.**
* The reserve that *would* have absorbed the killing blow (the overshoot of the
  final hit): **median 0.40, p75 2.00, p90 6.90, p99 15.0**. A free 5-energy
  reserve would have saved 85.1% of self-deaths.

So the prompt's hypothesis ("it dies at 40 energy, so the floor protects
against nothing") is **false**: the bot dies with nothing, every time. The
floor's premise is real.

### 2. We cannot climb back out of a low-energy dip

Energy rises on 0.598% of tick-pairs (~5.87 landed hits/round; **mean landed
power 1.42**, mode 1.0 — not 0.1). Per tick spent at a given level:

| energy | climb next tick | killed this tick | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| <= 3 | 0.130% | 0.830% | dying **6.4x** more likely |
| <= 5 | 0.232% | 0.663% | dying **2.9x** more likely |
| <= 10 | 0.365% | 0.437% | dying 1.2x more likely |
| <= 20 | 0.500% | 0.256% | recovering **2x** more likely |

Below ~10 energy a landed hit is not coming; below 20 it usually is. **A floor
at 20 would therefore block the only zone where recovery is actually
plausible.**

### 3. What the floor costs

| floor | % ticks blocked | rounds | med run | p90 run | mean run | % runs ending in death | bank @1.0p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 7.64% | 23086 | 34 | 299 | 98 | 80.8% | 8.2 |
| 5 | **9.58%** | 23739 | 53 | 330 | 118 | 78.0% | **9.9** |
| 10 | 14.52% | 25211 | 89 | 433 | 162 | 70.3% | 13.5 |
| 20 | 24.74% | 27799 | 139 | 621 | 236 | 60.0% | 19.6 |

"Bank" = mean suppressed run x `p/(10+2p)` energy/tick, the gun-heat ceiling
(`heat = 1 + p/5`, cool 0.1/tick). At 0.1 power it is 0.52 energy for floor 5;
at 2.0 power, 16.9.

**Measured caveat, and it matters:** the recorded energy ledger closes *exactly*
— `start + landed-gains - damage - end = -0.00` over 35065 rounds. **These
captures do not charge the firepower cost**, so the cost column is derived from
the game rules, not read off the data. The landed-hit *power* distribution is
read off the data (mode 1.0, mean 1.42) and is what sets the bracket.

### 4. Honest read — materially DIFFERENT from the geometry arm

Firing is **net energy-negative** for this bot on this panel: a landed hit
returns `3p` for `p` spent (break-even hit rate 1/3), and the hit rate cannot
exceed 5.87 hits / 76 shots-per-round heat ceiling = **7.7%**. So not firing
really does bank energy — about 9.9 at floor 5.

That is the same *kind* of trade the geometry arm made — spend offence, buy
protection — but a different *magnitude*:

* **Safety claim is stronger.** The geometry arm's safety gain did not convert
  into wins. Here the hazard is measured directly: 0.66%/tick death at energy
  <= 5, against a p75 overshoot of 2.0 and a bank of 9.9. The bank is above
  p75 and near p90 — a genuinely material reserve, not a rounding error.
* **Damage cost is ~an order of magnitude smaller.** Floor 5 suppresses ~4.4
  shots per median run; at 4 damage/hit and a 7.7% hit rate that is ~1.4
  damage per suppressed run, ~2 damage/run. The geometry arm lost **8.83
  damage/run** for its unconverted gain.
* **It is a light touch in time, not in behaviour**: 9.6% of ticks, median run
  53 ticks. Not a blackout.

**Verdict: the floor is worth an A/B. It is not the clean negative.** But the
honest counterweight is on the record: 78% of suppressed runs still end in
death, and the bank is only reached *because* we stopped shooting.

**Chosen value: `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=5`** — bank 9.9 (above p75 overshoot 2.0,
near p90 6.9) at 7.6%-vs-9.6% less tick cost than 10. Floor 20 is dropped on
the measurement: it costs 24.7% of ticks and sits on top of the <= 20 recovery
window.

---

## PROPOSAL — PRE-REGISTERED, **NOT RUN**

* Harness: `tools/ab/tournament_run.sh` + `tools/ab/tournament_analyze.py`,
  unmodified. Panel: `tools/ab/panel_movement.txt` (frozen 15-opponent movement
  panel). Unit of evidence is the opponent, not the battle. One frozen binary
  from `git archive` of `j160-ramfloor`.
* **Contamination control — j159's three guarantees, unchanged**: (1) per-arm
  `TR_ENV_FILE` in this job's own outdir (`/tmp/j162_floor/env/<arm>.env`);
  (2) the per-run botdir holds only `.json`, `.sh` and a symlink to the frozen
  binary — no `.env`, and the loader does not walk up; (3) **every** run's
  `[env]` boot report is checked against its arm, and any disagreement voids
  the session. **A session-record check runs BEFORE analysis**, not as a rewrite
  afterwards (j159 had a mid-analysis `session.json` rewrite; not repeated here).

| arm | env | role |
|---|---|---|
| `A_off` | both unset | REFERENCE |
| `B_floor` | `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=5` | the floor alone (value from the measurement) |
| `C_exhaust` | `TR_RAM_ENEMY_ENERGY=20` | the exhaustion trigger alone |
| `D_both` | `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=5 TR_RAM_ENEMY_ENERGY=20` | the combined policy |

No arm is inert, so none is dropped: `C_exhaust=20` acts on 7.1% of ticks
(enemy <= 20 while we are > 20) and `D_both` is the only arm that answers the
composition rule. A floor *sweep* arm is deliberately omitted — the measurement
chose the value, and the budget is better spent on n.

### Size — corrected for the real throughput

j159 measured **420 battles in 1110 s = 23 battles/min** (not the ~7/min the
previous estimate assumed). MDE scales as `1/sqrt(n)`; the shipped default
movement gate resolved **0.17 wins/run at 210 runs/arm**. For a target MDE of
**0.10 wins/run**: `n = 210 * (0.17/0.10)^2 = 607` runs/arm, rounded up to
**42 runs/opponent = 630 runs/arm**.

* 15 opponents x 4 arms x 42 runs x 3 rounds = **3780 battles ≈ 2.7 h**.
* Decision-only 2-arm version (`A_off` vs `B_floor`): 15 x 2 x 42 x 3 =
  **1890 battles ≈ 1.4 h**, still at MDE 0.10.

### Metrics (fixed now)

**Primaries: damage/run, round-win rate.** Mechanism, never a verdict: self
energy at death, ticks spent disabled, shots fired/run, ram-kill count.
Paired per-opponent deltas, mean/SD/SE/95% CI, sign test, sign-flip
permutation, Wilcoxon cross-check, reported MDE. Two-sided.

### Verdict rule (fixed now)

Adopt only if BOTH primaries favour the arm with `p(sign-flip) < 0.05` **and**
the effect is at or above the reported MDE. Otherwise do not ship; both knobs
stay `0.0`. A clean null is a fully acceptable result. No subsetting, no
dropping opponents, no re-running to chase a p-value.

---

# j163 — PRE-REGISTRATION: the FIRING FLOOR A/B (2 arms), BEFORE ANY BATTLE

**Written and committed before a single battle of this design was run.** Nothing
below was chosen after seeing data. Worktree `j160-ramfloor` @ `64e23e2`, one
frozen binary built by `tournament_run.sh` from `git archive HEAD`, both knobs
default-`0.0`, no code changed by this job.

## Hypothesis

The bot dies broke: **61.2% of rounds (21865/35753) end with self energy
crossing 0**, and energy on the last alive tick is median 0.83. Below **5**
energy the next tick brings death **2.9x** more often than a landed hit
(0.663%/tick vs 0.232%/tick); the bank of a suppressed run at floor 5 is ~9.9
energy against a p75 overshoot of 2.0 / p90 6.9 — a free 5-energy reserve would
have saved 85.1% of self-deaths. Firing is net energy-negative here (a landed
hit returns `3p` for `p` spent; the hit rate is capped at 5.87/76 = 7.7%), so
holding a reserve in the sub-5 zone should convert safety into **round wins**.

## Arms — two, differing in exactly one variable (`TR_MOVEMENT=tfil` pinned)

| arm | per-arm env file | role |
|---|---|---|
| `A_baseline` | `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=0` | REFERENCE (today's shipped behaviour) |
| `B_floor5`   | `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=5` | treatment, the value chosen by the j162 measurement |

**The `TR_RAM_ENEMY_ENERGY` (ram-exhaustion) arm is DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED.**
Its own measurement found the trigger is rare at its literal threshold and that
whether it fires is close to a coin flip in direction — it is not a
well-founded mechanism. Excluding it here is a decision, **not an oversight**;
this job tests only the one well-founded mechanism. If the floor is adopted, the
exhaustion trigger needs its own design and its own A/B.

## Primaries (fixed now)

1. **round-win rate** (rounds won / rounds fought) — **the deciding primary**
2. **damage/run**

## THE DAMAGE MDE IS STATED UP FRONT, BECAUSE IT IS BIGGER THAN THE EFFECT

Expected damage cost of floor 5: **~2 damage/run** (4.4 suppressed shots per
median run x 4 damage/hit x 7.7% hit rate) — versus **8.83 damage/run** for the
already-rejected geometry arm. The design's **damage MDE is 7.65**. The damage
effect is therefore **~3.8x below what this design can resolve**.

> **Recorded before any data: we EXPECT TO BE UNABLE TO MEASURE THE DAMAGE
> COST DIRECTLY. A null on damage/run is the predicted outcome, not a surprise,
> and must NOT be re-read after the fact as evidence either for or against the
> floor.** The verdict is judged on **ROUND WINS**. The damage MDE is a
> one-sided blind spot of this design, fixed in advance.

## Counterweight (also on the record before any data)

**78.0% of suppressed runs still end in death.** The floor protects the tail of
the energy ledger; it is not a shield. A mechanism-positive / outcome-null
result is the fifth such in this campaign (j144, j145, j146, j147, j159).

## Mechanism metrics (reported, never a verdict)

* self energy at death (per round);
* share of rounds ending at self energy **<= 0** (baseline **61.2%**);
* shots/run;
* share of ticks with firing suppressed (**floor 5 predicts ~9.6% of ticks,
  median suppressed run ~53 ticks**).
* Reported **per opponent as well as pooled**: j159's re-analysis showed a
  pooled test hid a real per-opponent effect (safety signal p=0.0008
  per-opponent, null pooled). The unit of evidence is the opponent.

## Size, MDE and the time floor

15 frozen opponents x 2 arms x **42 runs** x 3 rounds = **1890 battles**.
MDE ~**0.10 wins/run** (`210 x (0.17/0.10)^2`; 210 was the design that resolved
0.17 wins/run). At the measured 22.7-23.2 runs/min that is **~1.4 h — a floor
on elapsed time, not an estimate**: opponent heterogeneity does not average
down with added runs. If time runs short, the achieved n and the MDE actually
reached are reported exactly; the panel and the arms are **not** silently
shrunk.

## Contamination controls (all three, in order)

1. Each arm is launched with `TR_ENV_FILE` pointing at a **per-arm file this
   job generated** in its own directory (`/tmp/j163_env/<arm>.env`) — never a
   shell export, because the dotenv loader gives the FILE priority. The file
   dir is deliberately **outside** `--outdir` (`tournament_run.sh` `rm -rf`s
   the outdir). This matters: the owner has an 18 KB `.env` at
   `ModularBot_garage/out/.env` in the main tree. The per-run botdir holds only
   `.json`, `.sh` and a symlink to the frozen binary; the frozen binary's own
   directory holds no `.env`; the loader's fallbacks are `./.env` then
   exe-adjacent with **no parent walk**, so the owner's file is unreachable.
2. **Every run's `[env]` boot block is verified against its arm as runs
   complete** — `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY` and `TR_MOVEMENT=tfil` — and `mis-set`
   is counted and reported. A previous session was invalidated-risk because
   this was checked too late.
3. The session record is **read before analysis, never rewritten**. j159 had a
   mid-analysis `session.json` rewrite; declaring `TR_MOVEMENT` explicitly
   disables the analyzer's leaked-`TR_MOVEMENT` fatal check, so the built-in
   leak guard is **not trustworthy here** — the explicit per-run `[env]`
   verification above is the primary control. If the guard misbehaves it is
   **reported as a finding, not worked around**.

## Verdict rule (fixed now, two-sided)

**Adopt** only if round-win rate favours `B_floor5` with a per-opponent
**sign-flip permutation p < 0.05** AND the effect is at or above the reported
MDE. Otherwise **do not ship**; `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY` stays `0.0`. No
subsetting, no dropping opponents, no re-running to chase a p-value, no
reinterpreting the bar after seeing the data. **A clean null is a fully
acceptable result** — and a null here licenses only "no effect >= MDE is
detectable at this design", never "the knob is harmless".

---

## MEASURED

*(appended after the battles — everything above was committed first, at
`6cfb169`)*

### MEASURED — the live A/B, 450 runs/arm, 2700 rounds (j163)

* **Provenance.** Frozen 15-opponent movement panel
  (`tools/ab/panel_movement.txt`), 15 x 2 x **30 runs** x 3 rounds =
  **450 runs/arm, 2700 rounds**, `conc=6`, **0 failed, 0 never started**.
  Frozen binary `d9a39c3b8472…`, `TR_MOVEMENT=tfil` in both arms; the only
  difference is `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY` `0` (`A_floor0`, reference) vs `5`
  (`B_floor5`).
* **Env verification — 0 mis-set.** Every run's `[env]` boot block was checked
  against its arm as the session progressed, live at **24 / 193 / 410 / 826 /
  900** runs completed: no disagreement at any checkpoint. Per-arm
  `TR_ENV_FILE` in the session's own directory, botdir without a `.env`, loader
  does not walk up parents. This is contamination control #2 from the
  pre-registration, satisfied.
* **DEVIATION FROM THE PRE-REGISTRATION, DISCLOSED.** The design asked for
  **42 runs/opponent** (1890 battles, MDE ~0.10 wins/run). Measured throughput
  was **14-22 runs/min**, not the assumed 22.7-23.2, so the wall-clock cost of
  the pre-registered n was not affordable. As the pre-registration required,
  the **panel and the arms were NOT shrunk**: the full 15 opponents and both
  arms were kept and the **runs per opponent were reduced to 30**. The MDE
  actually reached is reported below and is the honest resolution limit of this
  run. No opponent was dropped, no arm was re-run to chase a p-value.

**Pooled dashboard (descriptive, NOT the verdict):**

| arm | runs | dmg/run | wins/run | round wins | round win rate |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| `A_floor0` | 450 | 113.65 | 0.200 | — | **40.30%** |
| `B_floor5` | 450 | 112.70 | 0.182 | — | **39.70%** |

**Verdict layer** (per-opponent paired deltas, arm − reference; the sign-flip
is the exact 2^15 permutation the pre-registration names as the decision test):

| metric | mean Δ | 95% CI | p(sign-flip) | sign test | Wilcoxon p | **MDE reached** |
|---|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| **round-win rate** | **-0.59 pp** | [-3.90, +2.72] | **0.7676** | 1.00 | 0.84 | **4.73 pp** |
| wins/run | -0.0178 | [-0.117, +0.082] | 0.7676 | 1.00 | 0.84 | 0.1420 |
| damage/run | -0.95 | [-3.88, +1.98] | 0.5298 | 1.00 | 0.84 | 4.19 |

### HEADLINE FINDING — the mechanism barely fired; the offline energy corpus did not survive contact with the live game

1. **Suppression was 0.04% of ticks, not the 9.6% the offline ruler predicted** —
   a **~200x** smaller effect. The pre-registration's own mechanism metric
   (`share of ticks with firing suppressed`, predicted ~9.6%, median suppressed
   run ~53 ticks) is the number that failed, and it failed by two orders of
   magnitude.
2. **Only 4.8% of shots are ever taken in the low-energy zone, and the floor
   removed 14% of those.** The gate therefore touches a small slice of a small
   slice: a bot that almost never wants to fire at low energy. The pre-
   registration's expected damage cost (~2 damage/run) was the arithmetic
   consequence of the 9.6% figure; with 0.04% it is ~200x smaller still, which
   is why the damage MDE (4.19) is unreachable by construction and not by bad
   luck.
3. **Rounds ending at self energy <= 0: 40.6% live vs 61.2% implied by the
   offline corpus** (the j162 baseline the pre-registration quoted). The
   recorded-fixture corpus over-states how often we die broke by ~1.5x. This is
   the second, independent way the same corpus mis-called the live game.
4. **Median self energy at death 14.1 -> 15.5** — the floor moved the death
   energy by +1.4, real but tiny, and nowhere near the "we sit disabled" state
   the floor was built for.
5. **The pre-registered blind spot was called correctly.** The pre-registration
   states, in advance, that we expect to be unable to measure the damage cost
   directly and that a damage null must not be re-read afterwards as evidence.
   That call was right, and it is the reason this run cannot be misread.

### VERDICT — DO NOT ADOPT

1. **The pre-registered verdict rule is not met.** Adopt required round-win
   rate favouring `B_floor5` with per-opponent sign-flip p < 0.05 AND the
   effect at or above the reported MDE. Observed: **-0.59 pp against**, p =
   **0.7676**, under the 4.73 pp MDE. Round wins and wins/run are the same
   null (p = 0.7676, MDE 0.1420 wins/run).
2. **`TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY` stays `0.0`.** Do not adopt, do not ship, and **do
   not re-test this knob.** The design that could resolve a real effect does
   not exist at an affordable run count, and the mechanism it was built to
   suppress is nearly absent in the live game. Re-running buys resolution on an
   effect that is not there.
3. **A null here does NOT prove the knob inert — the opposite.** The mechanism
   fired on 0.04% of ticks. This run licenses only: "no effect >= 4.73 pp of
   round-win rate at 450 runs/arm". It says nothing about the ~0.04% of ticks
   it did suppress, because too few of them existed to measure.
4. **The generalisable finding is the corpus, not the knob.** The offline
   energy corpus over-predicted both the size of the low-energy firing window
   (9.6% -> 0.04%) and the rate of dying broke (61.2% -> 40.6%). An offline
   ruler built on recorded fixtures is only as representative as the fixtures;
   the death-energy corpus does not represent the live energy ledger. Future
   offline rulers for exhaustion must be calibrated against a live
   death-energy distribution before their predictions are pre-registered as
   expectations, not just as a rationale.

**Ship state: unchanged. `TR_RAM_FLOOR_ENERGY=0.0` and `TR_RAM_ENEMY_ENERGY=0.0`
remain the shipped defaults, and the ram path keeps its pre-j160 behaviour.**
This is the sixth mechanism-positive-or-presumed / outcome-not-positive result
in the campaign (j144, j145, j146, j147, j159, j163) — and the first where the
mechanism was not merely ineffective but **~200x smaller than the offline ruler
said it would be**.