Same frozen panel, same 3x3 design, new session on commit 8efa627 (no source file
changed since 1984a78, so the same code), 225 battles, 0 invalid runs. Arms:
tfil, strafe_notilt, strafe_325 + the tilt re-armed at 600px and 250px.
Paired vs tfil: strafe_325 +0.58 wins/run [CI +0.27,+0.89] 11/12 p=0.0063;
strafe_notilt +0.47 [+0.22,+0.72] 10/11 p=0.0117; tilt_600 +0.40 [+0.04,+0.76]
(sign test 8/11 p=0.23, sign-flip p=0.049); tilt_250 +0.38 [+0.07,+0.69] 10/12
p=0.039. Incoming hit rate -5.2..-6.9 pp with 0/15 opponents favouring tfil.
The range TARGET is not the lever: re-arming the tilt moved the achieved
distance from 459px (no steering) to 478px and 415px, and none of the three is
separable on wins. This overturns Batch 1's reading that the tilt costs wins -
the honest statement is that the tilt's win effect is below this design's
resolution. tfil reproduced to within 1.4 pp (40.7% -> 39.3% of rounds), so the
baseline itself is stable across sessions.
Ledger: Batch 2 section, the verbatim analyzer report, a data-driven
what-to-try-next, and the session log.
SirStone
7d3645da5a