Is STABLE truly empty, or is the crypto 0/91โ0/92 regime-invariance result a strict-linear (exact) test artifact? The grounding metric is a nonparametric residual ICP (arXiv:1706.08576) read on an ฮต-tolerance / budget frontier (arXiv:2501.17354). The required trust basis is G10 shuffled-null power calibration โ i.e. separating "no power" (the test can't detect invariance even when present) from "no signal" (there genuinely is none).
Synthesised from committed artifacts; no new ClickHouse measurement, so leakage_guard.py is not invoked (R7 applies to new measurements). Sources: SOTA-RESEARCH-2026-06-23.md (ยง2.3, ยง3.1), METRIC-ADDITION-GATE.md (ยงB), STATUS-GROUNDING-AND-THRESHOLDS.md, FULL-GRID-SCALE-VERDICT.md, LICENSE-AUDIT.md.
| Claim | Value / status | Trust basis |
|---|---|---|
| Strict ICP exact-invariant set | 0/91โ0/92 (STABLE-empty) | Type-I-controlled linear/exact ICP (ฮฑ=0.05); committed + replicated (SPIKE-2026-06-16). This is the result whose interpretation Q3 interrogates. |
| Is an empty EXACT set even informative? | No โ provably degenerate | Theorem (arXiv:2501.17354, Gu et al. 2025): exact invariance pursuit is NP-hard even in the linear, well-separated case โ an empty exact-invariant set is the expected, computationally-degenerate outcome, not an informative "no-signal" structural verdict. So 0/91โ0/92 cannot be trusted as a no-signal ceiling. |
| Correctly-posed form of the question | ฮต-tolerance frontier | Same paper's two-knob relaxation: "STABLE is empty" โ "STABLE is non-empty at tolerance ฮต* with budget k*". Determining ฮต* needs the relaxed test below. |
| Deciding test: nonlinear/relaxed ICP (F014) | specified but UNBUILT | arXiv:1706.08576 (Heinze-Deml/Peters/Meinshausen) โ a nonparametric residual test that detects invariance from nonlinear mechanisms the linear test mechanically rejects. Classified magic-number-free (MATRIX-PARAMETER-CLASSIFICATION ยงF014). FOSS = R cran/nonlinearICP (GPL-2.0+), process-isolation via Rscript (LICENSE-AUDIT). Rscript is not installed on this host โ cannot run without an R install + a new harness. |
| G10 power calibration (no-power vs no-signal) | MISSING | The required trust basis is absent. METRIC-ADDITION-GATE ยงB is explicit: the relaxed-ICP run "must be paired with G10's shuffled-null power calibration to separate 'no power' from 'no signal'; otherwise an empty result is meaningless." No such calibration exists yet. |
PARTIAL. Q3 splits into two parts and resolves asymmetrically:
Do not read this iteration as "STABLE is actually non-empty / a stable-orthogonal set exists." Nothing here finds any invariant feature. The only positive claim is the interpretive one โ that an empty exact set is not informative as a no-signal verdict (a published theorem) โ and the only honest status of the genuine question (is there relaxed invariance?) is undecided, measurement unbuilt. No metric is promoted to a gate.
| Guard | Evidence |
|---|---|
| ClickHouse READ-ONLY (R1) | Read-only access present (--readonly=2); no query was required โ committed-artifact synthesis (0 queries, 0 writes). |
| Watchdog precheck (R2) | load1 = 2.60 โค 24; no compute envelope launched (the only real measurement, F014, is out-of-surface and has no runtime here โ Rscript absent). |
| Leakage discipline (R7) | No new measurement โ leakage_guard.py N/A. The strict 0/91โ0/92 inherits its committed leakage-PASS basis; the NP-hardness claim is a literature theorem, not a data result. |
| Write surfaces (R3) | Only this dashboard folder + PR #543 body. The F014 harness was NOT authored (out-of-surface); handed to operator. |
cran/nonlinearICP, build the F014 harness (feed crypto bars + the 10-environment regime partition), pair it with a G10 shuffled-null power calibration (inject a known-invariant positive control โ confirm the test detects it), and read the result on the ฮต-frontier (2501.17354). Empty and G10-power-confirmed โ real ceiling; non-empty โ the strict test was the limiter.