Can the rate at which work settles into a machine, or whether novel work keeps arriving, be read off the records already in hand? This program studies the measurement design itself. It can be tested on a generative world, so it needs no real data to answer.
And a synthetic world flatters its author. The current subject of this program is naming the forms that flattery takes and putting each one to a test.
Question
Where does a measurement-design result obtained on a world of your own making give way under a sweep? And how should whatever survives be claimed again?
Current public state
Both headline results are currently withdrawn. A synthetic world flatters its author, and the flattery turned out to have forms.
The first was fixing the only thing that drives the quantity being measured. That constant moves the metric by 0.209; the thing we claimed to measure moves it by at most 0.027, with an unstable sign — a factor of 7.9. The second was pinning an unobservable nuisance at one value and publishing a decision line as a function of sample size. Sweep the nuisance and a frontier that fully closes clears the published line.
Only the weaker form survives: reuse and the settling rate are different quantities, and only reuse responds. That one is not an artifact of a constant.
Evidence boundary: Synthetic, and the mechanism family is ours. No real data of any kind was used and no claim about any application field is made. This is a self-review, so an attack we did not think of is by construction not in it.
Read the current Research Note (FRONTIER-METRICS-REVIEW-0001) →