SirStone
fd2f7f608c
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.