review: stage-08 adversarial red-team of the combined companion paper (PASS)

3-persona integrity red-team of docs/stage-07-companion-methods.md (RQ2-P3
mechanism + RQ3), same discipline as the lead stage-08 review. Runs only on
already-sealed artifacts; computes no new statistic; edits no frozen prereg.

METHODOLOGIST: reproduced the authoritative Holm-7 step-down independently,
byte-for-byte vs the sealed record (survivors RQ1-P1 / RQ2-P1 / RQ2-P3;
non-survivors RQ1-P2 / RQ3-P2 / RQ3-P1-perf / RQ3-P1-latency). Confirmed the
supersedes-partial-embedding claim, the single-slot RQ2-P3 mechanism-corrected
p (family_size 7), run-level cluster-bootstrap validity, two-sided pre-commit.

DOMAIN SKEPTIC: mix-qualifies-shrink scoped as correction not overwrite;
calibration preview (dry-pass rho -> +0.838) disclosed and kept DISTINCT from
the confirmatory pooled +0.6244; RQ3 double-null unspun (perf = retention
ceiling / no headroom; P2 = n=30 power limitation, not a false all-clear).

REPRODUCIBILITY AUDITOR: every figure matches the sealed records (rq2p3
5fdcb379, rq3 analysis e09c66ef, rq3 battery 5b61e461); the 0.93 calibration
AUC (kp30-vs-kp5 regime) kept distinct from the 0.587 confirmatory
agent-vs-baseline AUC (no HARKing); Ollama temp-0 cross-hardware caveat
present; both prereg SHAs (f22331a72e, 8db4e8a7) recomputed intact; blinding
integrity = each track filled once, post-seal.

One prose-clarity defect found and fixed: §5 Holm-7 ranks 6-7 report the
step-down monotone-enforced 0.511 (bare products 0.354 / 0.497); added a
one-clause note so it cannot read as an arithmetic slip. ZERO numbers changed.

Worktree-only on feat/sor-consent-relay; containment intact; $0/offline.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/stage-07-companion-methods.md

@@ -288,7 +288,10 @@ confirmatory battery and have both passed on a **dry, synthetic, offline** pass:
   **mechanism-corrected** primary H1-pooled Spearman p, superseding the lead's degenerate
   as-instrumented RQ2-P3): **survivors = RQ1-P1 (rank 1 ×7), RQ2-P1 shrink (rank 2 ×6), RQ2-P3 mix
   (rank 3 ×5)** — all adjusted p = 0. **Do not survive:** RQ1-P2 (rank 4 ×4, adj p = 0.365), RQ3-P2
-  (rank 5 ×3, 0.511), RQ3-P1-perf (rank 6 ×2, 0.511), RQ3-P1-latency (rank 7 ×1, 0.511). This is the
+  (rank 5 ×3, 0.511), RQ3-P1-perf (rank 6 ×2, 0.511), RQ3-P1-latency (rank 7 ×1, 0.511). *(Holm
+  adjusted p-values are step-down **monotone-enforced** — a later rank never reports a smaller
+  adjusted p than an earlier one — so ranks 6–7 inherit the rank-5 value rather than their smaller
+  bare rank-products; this is standard Holm, not an arithmetic slip.)* This is the
   **authoritative** final correction and **supersedes** the lead paper's conservative *partial*
   embedding (report-4); both remain valid, the partial never under-corrects, and lead RQ1-P1 /
   RQ2-P1 survive regardless.

docs/stage-08-companion-adversarial-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+# Stage-08 companion adversarial review (SS5) — red-team of the combined companion paper
+
+**Status: PASS** (self-adversarial pass over the sealed RQ2-P3′ + RQ3 records and the post-seal
+filled companion paper). This is an internal integrity red-team, not a new analysis: it computes no
+new confirmatory statistic, touches no raw data, and does **not** edit either frozen prereg. It runs
+only over already-frozen / already-sealed artifacts:
+
+- Paper under review: `docs/stage-07-companion-methods.md` (RQ2-P3 mechanism + RQ3, D3 combined).
+- Sealed records: `output/sor-rq2p3-confirmatory/rq2p3-confirmatory-results.json`
+  (SHA-256 `5fdcb379d8a2b88e766748c4907a3754cb34fc1fba56e01e1527fae7c05b872a`);
+  `output/sor-rq3-confirmatory/20260722T040640Z/analysis/rq3-confirmatory-analysis.json`
+  (SHA-256 `e09c66efe00524ae3e5373bd20121e6e022e6885596f4fa9aabd51653c76929b`), over battery
+  `…/confirmatory-data/rq3-battery-results.json` (SHA-256 `5b61e461004722985c1a7a9bc5fdfe855395df3180c71e6efdc3531b8ecf8039`).
+- Frozen preregs (recomputed, both **intact / unmoved**): lead `sor-consent-prereg.md` SHA-256
+  `f22331a72e0d0ccf38b787e63acabbe9d666456ec76076787a6d545c3193425b`; RQ2-P3 mechanism
+  `docs/rq2p3-mechanism-prereg.md` SHA-256 `8db4e8a7ac60f8b2861f2387249db68a3fd44822f6b3d9c7c6990ff65f261a3b`
+  (matches sidecar `docs/rq2p3-mechanism-prereg.sha256`).
+
+Three red-team personas were run: (1) METHODOLOGIST, (2) DOMAIN SKEPTIC, (3) REPRODUCIBILITY
+AUDITOR. Each check is marked **PASS** / **DEFECT**. One prose-clarity defect was found and fixed
+(zero numbers changed); no other defects.
+
+---
+
+## Persona 1 — METHODOLOGIST (statistics & multiplicity)
+
+**M1. Authoritative Holm-7 arithmetic over the frozen size-7 family. PASS.**
+Independently reproduced the step-down over the exact frozen family {RQ1-P1, RQ1-P2, RQ2-P1,
+RQ2-P3, RQ3-P1-perf, RQ3-P1-latency, RQ3-P2}, `family_size = 7`. Ascending raw p → multipliers
+7,6,5,4,3,2,1 give bare products 0, 0, 0, 0.3648, 0.5112, 0.3540, 0.4970; monotone (step-down
+running-max) enforcement lifts ranks 6–7 to 0.5112. Adjusted p = {RQ1-P1 0, RQ2-P1 0, RQ2-P3 0,
+RQ1-P2 0.365, RQ3-P2 0.511, RQ3-P1-perf 0.511, RQ3-P1-latency 0.511}; survivors @ α = .05 =
+{RQ1-P1, RQ2-P1, RQ2-P3}. This reproduces the sealed `authoritative_holm7` rows byte-for-byte.
+**Note (prompted the one fix below):** ranks 6–7 report 0.511 even though their bare rank-products
+(0.354, 0.497) are smaller — this is Holm monotonicity, not an arithmetic slip; the paper now says
+so explicitly.
+
+**M2. "Supersedes partial embedding" claim. PASS.**
+The lead paper deliberately assigned its four *reported* tests the largest multipliers (7,6,5,4) —
+a conservative partial embedding that can only **over**-correct. The companion's exact Holm-7 ranks
+all seven by ascending p. Both are valid; the partial never under-corrects; and the two
+already-published lead survivors (RQ1-P1, RQ2-P1) survive under either scheme (their raw p ≈ 0). The
+paper states this symmetrically ("both remain valid, the partial never under-corrects") and does not
+use the authoritative pass to retroactively weaken a lead claim. No over-claim.
+
+**M3. RQ2-P3 slot integrity (single-slot, mechanism-corrected). PASS.**
+The frozen family carries **one** RQ2-P3 slot. The companion fills it with the mechanism-corrected
+primary statistic — H1-pooled Spearman ρ, `p_for_holm = 0.0` from the sealed RQ2-P3 record — rather
+than the lead's degenerate as-instrumented RQ2-P3 (`p = 1.0`). `family_size` stays 7 (not inflated
+to 8 by smuggling in H2). This is the faithful reading of the frozen single-slot design, and the
+substitution is disclosed in-paper (§4, §5 Holm bullet, §6) and in the sealed `p_sources`.
+
+**M4. Run-level cluster-bootstrap validity. PASS.**
+Both tracks resample the **run** (the confirmatory grouping unit), not the circuit, because circuits
+within a run share a bridge draw / churn schedule and are correlated — the same pseudo-replication
+defect the lead paper flagged for RQ1-P1. RQ2-P3 H1/H2 use 10,000 BCa run-level resamples; RQ3 uses
+a run-level multi-arm bootstrap (independent per-arm resampling + combined leave-one-out jackknife +
+BCa endpoints), 10,000 resamples, α = 0.05, verified in the harness to reproduce the frozen
+two-sample rule bit-for-bit for the two-mean case. Effect + BCa CI is reported for **every** test.
+
+**M5. Two-sided pre-commitment integrity. PASS.**
+RQ2-P3 H1/H2/H3 are pre-registered two-sided (funnel iff CI<0, mix iff CI>0, inconclusive iff spans
+0); the mix result is a *positive-side* CI exclusion, not a one-tailed re-test. RQ3-P1-perf /
+-latency / -P2 gates are the pre-registered one-sided CI bounds (≥ +10pp, ≤ 100ms, ≤ 0.60) fixed in
+the frozen lead prereg — directionality is pre-committed, not chosen post-hoc. p is carried **only**
+to order Holm; the CI gates are the decisions, and no bare p is used as a claim anywhere.
+
+**M6. "Effect + CI, never bare p." PASS.** Every reported quantity in §5/§6 leads with a point
+estimate and BCa CI; the only p-values shown are the Holm-family adjusted values, explicitly labelled
+as ordering/decision inputs.
+
+---
+
+## Persona 2 — DOMAIN SKEPTIC (mechanism & framing)
+
+**D1. Mechanism-correction claim (RQ2-P3 mix qualifies the lead RQ2-P1 shrink as a unique-bridge
+artifact). PASS — appropriately scoped.**
+The claim is stated as a **qualification/correction**, not an overwrite: the lead RQ2-P1 shrink and
+its frozen prereg "stand as published and are not re-litigated." The mechanism (fresh-bridge-per-seed
+→ injective exit signatures → set size 1 → H≈0 by construction, removed under a finite shared pool)
+is the pre-registered reading in `docs/note-unique-bridge-artifact.md`, tied to the frozen mechanism
+prereg SHA. The confirmatory direction (concentration **raises** H; H1 ρ = +0.6244, H2 β = +0.7052,
+both CIs strictly positive) matches that mechanism. The skeptic's strongest objection — "you are just
+renaming the lead's null" — is met: this is a *new manipulated-IV dose-response* on a *new* pool
+topology, not a re-run of RQ2-P1, and the pool cannot reproduce the injective degeneracy (§7 gate 1).
+
+**D2. Mandatory calibration-preview disclosure (dry pass ρ 0 → +0.838). PASS.**
+The paper discloses, with equal prominence in §3 and §6, that the offline §7 calibration dry-pass
+already previewed the mix direction (Spearman ρ 0 → +0.838 across the sweep; B=1 boundary at high
+entropy ≈2.54 bits vs fresh-bridge ≈0.0), so the confirmatory battery "quantifies a dose-response
+already visible at calibration," while the pre-committed hypotheses remained two-sided. This is the
+honesty discipline the lead paper set. **Auditor cross-check:** the +0.838 figure belongs to the
+*synthetic dry calibration pass*, a separate artifact from the confirmatory record; the confirmatory
+sealed sweep's per-cell exploratory Spearman tops out at +0.794 (B=8/α=1) and the pooled confirmatory
+ρ is +0.6244 — so +0.838 is correctly presented as a *calibration preview*, not mislabelled as a
+confirmatory number.
+
+**D3. RQ3 double-null framing. PASS.**
+Both RQ3 nulls are reported as findings with equal prominence, not spun:
+- **Perf null** is attributed to a *baseline retention ceiling* (every arm heals ~all churn,
+  retention ≈ 0.99, margin −0.6pp), i.e. "no headroom," and explicitly says the agent "is not worse …
+  merely not better." It does **not** re-frame a null as a win.
+- **Latency** correctly holds the ≤100ms budget (−13.5ms, CI upper 34.9ms) and the paper is careful
+  that P1 fails on the *perf* gate, not latency.
+- **P2 non-exclusion** is framed as a **power** limitation at n = 30 ("underpowered to exclude a small
+  rebuild-timing signal … rather than a false all-clear"), never as "no fingerprint exists."
+This is the correct, non-spun reading of AUC 0.587 with CI upper 0.703 > 0.60.
+
+**D4. Calibration-vs-confirmatory AUC separation (no HARKing). PASS — explicitly verified.**
+The §3-4 calibration AUC ≈ **0.93** is *churned(kp30)-vs-low-churn(kp5) regime* discrimination on
+labelled control signals; the confirmatory RQ3-P2 AUC = **0.587** is *agent-vs-pooled-baseline-selector*
+discrimination on the confirmatory cells. The paper keeps these **distinct** in both §5 (parenthetical
+disclosure: "a different comparison … the calibration validated the instrument and does not preview
+the confirmatory selector value") and the sealed `honest_disclosure`. The frozen detector
+(`rebuild_classifier_auc`, per-run mean inter-rebuild-gap) is the same instrument in both, not tuned to
+confirmatory data — no HARKing, no detector-to-data fitting.
+
+**D5. Nulls / mix reported as results, with equal prominence. PASS.** The abstract, §5, and §6 all
+carry the double-null and the mix with the same weight as any positive finding; scope & limitations
+(§6) bound both to the lab grid.
+
+---
+
+## Persona 3 — REPRODUCIBILITY AUDITOR (number fidelity & provenance)
+
+**R1. Number fidelity, RQ2-P3 (paper ⟷ `rq2p3-confirmatory-results.json`). PASS.**
+- H1 pooled Spearman ρ point **+0.6244**, CI **[+0.5941, +0.6545]** ⟷ sealed 0.624397 /
+  [0.594080, 0.654513]. ✓
+- H2 OLS slope β **+0.7052**, CI **[+0.6195, +0.7903]**, n = 270 ⟷ 0.705250 / [0.619455, 0.790277] /
+  n_points 270. ✓
+- H3 RESOLVED = MIX (agree_in_sign ∧ both_exclude_zero). ✓ Holm own-family {H1,H2} both reject. ✓
+- Sweep exemplars: B=2/α=0 conc ≈1.00, H ≈2.54 ⟷ 1.0000 / 2.5410; B=8/α=0 conc ≈0.51, H ≈2.19 ⟷
+  0.5053 / 2.1870. ✓ Grid metadata C=50, R=30, 9 cells, 13,500 bridged circuits, S0=20260719,
+  10,000 resamples. ✓
+
+**R2. Number fidelity, RQ3 (paper ⟷ `rq3-confirmatory-analysis.json`). PASS.**
+- RQ3-P1-perf point **−0.6pp**, CI **[−1.58pp, +0.39pp]**, gate lower ≥ +10pp → **fails** ⟷
+  −0.006312 / [−0.015830, +0.003866], holds=false. ✓
+- RQ3-P1-latency point **−13.5ms**, CI **[−52.1, +34.9]ms**, min-baseline = **random**, ≤100ms →
+  **holds** ⟷ −13.4916 / [−52.1484, +34.9112], min_latency_baseline_arm="random", holds=true. ✓
+- RQ3-P2 AUC **0.587**, CI **[0.458, 0.703]**, upper 0.703 > 0.60 → **fails** (n_agent 30 /
+  n_baseline 60) ⟷ 0.586944 / [0.458056, 0.703436], holds=false. ✓
+- RQ3-P3 = **H0** (p1_holds=false ∧ p2_holds=false). ✓
+- Holm-7 rows / survivors / non-survivors reproduce the sealed `authoritative_holm7` (see M1). ✓
+
+**R3. Ollama temp-0 cross-hardware caveat. PASS.**
+The paper states, with equal prominence to the RQ1 timing caveat (§4 and §6-scope-(iii)), that the
+agent (`qwen2.5:3b`, local Ollama, temperature 0) is **not bit-identical across machines**
+(quantization / GPU logit drift) and is reproducible via the **committed decision-log + (seed,
+state-hash) cache replay**, *not* via independent model re-execution on other hardware. This matches
+the sealed `honest_disclosure` verbatim in substance.
+
+**R4. Prereg SHAs intact. PASS.** Recomputed on disk: lead `f22331a72e…` and RQ2-P3 `8db4e8a7…`
+both match their pinned values and the sidecar; neither prereg file was edited by this review or by
+the fills. The sealed record digests `5fdcb379…`, `e09c66ef…`, `5b61e461…` all recompute exactly.
+
+**R5. Blinding integrity — Results filled once, post-seal. PASS.**
+Git history: scaffold authored blind (`4f89a90`); a prose-only QA fix (`50b1701`); RQ2-P3
+Results/Discussion filled **after** its battery sealed (`e0d865d`, following `f920516` STEP-2 seal);
+RQ3 Results/Discussion filled **after** the RQ3 seal (`1b6449b`, following `47faee3`). Each track's
+Results were filled **once**, from its sealed record, with no pre-seal fill and no re-slice/re-fill.
+Consistent with the un-blinded header and §5/§6 provenance notes.
+
+**R6. Containment framing. PASS.** RQ2-P3 ran offline + deterministic ($0, no engine/traffic/grid);
+RQ3 ran operator-GO'd on the isolated docker grid (`live-docker-e2e`, self-generated fixture
+traffic), agent arm local/open-weight ($0, frontier arm inert). The paper's framing is
+defensive-measurement throughout; no containment line is crossed or implied.
+
+---
+
+## Defect found and corrected (1)
+
+- **Holm-7 monotonicity read as a possible arithmetic slip (prose clarity).** In §5 the three RQ3
+  non-survivors are listed as RQ3-P2 (rank 5 ×3, 0.511), RQ3-P1-perf (rank 6 ×2, 0.511),
+  RQ3-P1-latency (rank 7 ×1, 0.511). A reader recomputing the bare rank-products would get 0.354
+  (rank 6) and 0.497 (rank 7), not 0.511 — the reported values are the **step-down monotone-enforced**
+  Holm adjusted p (a later rank never reports a smaller adjusted p than an earlier one), which is
+  correct but was unexplained. Added a one-clause parenthetical stating the monotonicity so the values
+  cannot be mistaken for an error. **No number changed** — the 0.511 values are the Holm-correct
+  outputs and were already faithful to the sealed record; only an explanatory clause was added.
+
+## Residual honest limitations (carried, not defects)
+
+- **RQ3-P2 is underpowered (n = 30 runs/arm)** to exclude a small rebuild-timing fingerprint; the
+  non-exclusion is a power limitation, reported as such, not a proof of a fingerprint nor a false
+  all-clear. Carried openly in §5/§6.
+- **RQ3 perf null is grid-bound**: it follows from a baseline retention ceiling under the pinned
+  churn (kp30/steps20) on this small grid, not a general claim that adaptive selection cannot help.
+- **RQ2-P3 mix is an as-instrumented concentration effect** on the ratified exit-signature posterior,
+  not an internet-scale claim.
+- **Agent-arm reproducibility** is via committed decision-log + cache replay, not cross-hardware model
+  re-execution (Ollama temp-0 drift) — stated with equal prominence to the RQ1 timing caveat.
+
+**Outcome:** the combined companion paper is internally consistent, number-faithful to both sealed
+records, spin-free (both nulls and the mix reported with equal prominence), multiplicity-correct
+(authoritative Holm-7 reproduced independently), and blinding-honest (each track filled once,
+post-seal), after the one monotonicity-clarity prose fix. Both frozen preregs are intact. Ready for
+operator review.