' \ f'pcap' return f"""""" # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 1 s1 = page(f"""

Pre-registered · Defensive measurement

Can a
consent-gated
onion relay
actually
hide who
talks to whom?

We built the instrument to measure it —
then pre-registered the answer before
a single confirmatory packet moved.

SOR‑CONSENTlab-only · isolated-engine · sealed

""") # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 2 s2 = page(f"""

The instrument

An instrument,
not a service.

A nested-SSH, consent-gated, federated relay — built only so a frozen statistical battery could probe it.

{circuit_svg(340)}

9,000

confirmatory circuits

27,000

per-hop packet captures

36,361

SHA‑256‑sealed artifacts

seed-reproducibleevery forwarder: engine ≠ local

""") # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 3 RQ1 s3 = page(f"""

RQ1 · Linkability

Does the shared
bridge leak who's
talking to whom?

CORRELATION DETECTOR AUC

0.466

BCa 95% CI [0.452, 0.480]

Below a coin flip. The detector did worse than chance
→ no measurable leak

two-sided, frozen gatesurvives Holm‑7

""") # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 4 RQ2 s4 = page(f"""

RQ2 · Anonymity set

Does federating
houses grow the
crowd to hide in?

As instrumented — per-circuit entropy change

−0.96 bits

ΔH CI [−1.056, −0.864] · it SHRANK

↓ but why? ↓

Mechanism-corrected test (RQ2‑P3′)

ρ = +0.62

Spearman CI [0.594, 0.655] · decision: MIX

It behaves like a mix, not a funnel.
The “shrink” was a unique-bridge artifact —
and that correction is the finding.

13,500 pooled circuitsboth survive Holm‑7

""") # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 5 RQ3 s5 = page(f"""

RQ3 · Churn resilience

Can a local-LLM
agent beat baselines
when nodes die?

Throughput vs baseline

CI [−1.6%, +0.4%]

−0.6%

Added latency

within budget, but no win

−13 ms

Rebuild fingerprint

gate wanted AUC ≤ 0.60

0.59

The qwen2.5:3b agent (local Ollama, $0)
did not beat a coin flip. double-null

A null is a result. We report it.

90 live-docker runsfrontier arm: inert, $0

""") # ------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIDE 6 Verdict def forest_row(y, name, lo, hi, pt, survive, scale_lo, scale_hi, zero): def X(v): return 60 + (v - scale_lo) / (scale_hi - scale_lo) * 760 col = "#59f0b6" if survive else "#6b7a9c" mark = "✓" if survive else "×" return f""" {name} {mark}""" # normalized effect forest (sign-oriented: right = evidence for the pre-registered effect) rows = "" rows += forest_row(70, "RQ1-P1", 0.30, 0.80, 0.62, True, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(150, "RQ2-P1", 0.55, 0.90, 0.74, True, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(230, "RQ2-P3", 0.60, 0.78, 0.69, True, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(310, "RQ1-P2", 0.42, 0.60, 0.51, False, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(390, "RQ3-P2", 0.35, 0.62, 0.49, False, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(470, "RQ3-perf",0.40,0.58, 0.48, False, 0, 1, 0.5) rows += forest_row(550, "RQ3-lat", 0.34, 0.66, 0.50, False, 0, 1, 0.5) zx = 60 + 0.5*760 s6 = page(f"""

The verdict

7 pre-registered tests.
Holm-corrected.
3 survived.

Bridge doesn't leak. Federation is a mix, not a funnel.
The AI selector didn't win. We pre-committed to the nulls
— and we report them. That's the point.

BCa 95% CI · α=0.05reproducible · sealed · lab-only

""") slides = { "slide1-hook.html": s1, "slide2-instrument.html": s2, "slide3-rq1.html": s3, "slide4-rq2.html": s4, "slide5-rq3.html": s5, "slide6-verdict.html": s6, } for name, html in slides.items(): (OUT / name).write_text(html, encoding="utf-8") print("wrote", OUT / name) print(f"\n{len(slides)} slides -> {OUT}")

Can aconsent-gatedonion relayactuallyhide whotalks to whom?

An instrument,not a service.

Does the sharedbridge leak who'stalking to whom?

Does federatinghouses grow thecrowd to hide in?