tb-v1 report + plan: diagnosis on trial, branch pre-registered

Firing verified on a real prod snapshot: 10/10 total_bases props carry
proj_tb_p_over. The snapshot HTTP call returned 524 (Cloudflare's 100s
origin timeout vs a ~115s snapshot) but the work completed server-side --
confirmed from the ledger rather than assumed.

Face validity is good and diagnostic: means agree almost exactly with the
ladder (1.813 vs 1.833), so this is a SHAPE-ONLY intervention, which is
what was intended. Component rates are plausible, and Carroll's triples
rate (0.112, far above his peers) is a clean check -- he is a speed player
and the model sees it.

AN OBSERVATION I AM NOT RESOLVING BY EYE: tb-v1 reads systematically LOWER
than the ladder (0.424 vs 0.540 at the same mean). That is the expected
DIRECTION, since the NB overstates P(>=2) by treating a home run as four
accumulating events -- but whether 0.424 is right or an overcorrection is
not knowable from face validity. A ~1.8-TB hitter clearing 1.5 empirically
sits nearer 45-50%, between the two. I am not claiming tb-v1 is better; the
holdout decides.

BRANCH PRE-REGISTERED, before the result, so the verdict cannot be
reinterpreted afterward: improves -> family-mismatch HOLDS, similarity
stays off the critical path, hits is next; does not improve -> hypothesis
WRONG and the mean-weakness/similarity branch REOPENS.

Also recorded: I hit Number(null)===0 in my own new module -- a null
component rate treated as a measured zero, the difference between "never
triples" and "we don't know his triple rate". A test caught it. Sixth
appearance of this trap in this codebase, and it caught the person writing
the warnings about it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QJs13VsyiSKYQP6rj3NNmc

specs/MASTER-PLAN.md

@@ -29,33 +29,27 @@ stay provisional until re-run** · documented ≠ verified.
 
 ## ▶ NEXT EXECUTABLE ORDER
 
-**TARGETED PER-STAT FIX for `hits` and `total_bases` in proj-v1.1.** Diagnosis:
-`specs/proj-v11-diagnosis.md`.
+**AWAIT the tb-v1 verdict, then `hits`.** `specs/tb-v1-compound.md`.
 
-The ladder's loss is **concentrated, not systemic**. On matched, direction-aligned
-rows (n=437) the real gap is **0.252 vs 0.352** — not the 0.108 vs 0.331 previously
-reported, which was **unaligned on direction across 31.4% under-graded rows**.
+**tb-v1 is LIVE as a challenger** — total_bases modelled as the compound outcome
+it is (per-component Poisson rates convolved exactly) instead of one negative
+binomial that treats a home run as four events. Firing on **10/10 TB props**;
+means agree with the ladder, **only the shape differs** — the intended
+intervention.
 
-**`hits` (n=245) and `total_bases` (n=49) are 67% of the sample and carry
-essentially no signal** (0.060 and 0.009). Everything else is fine or better:
-**`walks` 0.519 vs champion 0.544**, and on **`doubles` the ladder's MEAN beats the
-champion's** (0.207 vs −0.062). Priors and plumbing are clean; compression was
-tested and **disproved** (spread ratio 0.80–0.94).
+**The diagnosis is on trial, and the branch is pre-registered:**
+- **tb-v1 improves TB resolution** → family-mismatch **HOLDS**, similarity stays
+  **off** the critical path, **`hits` is next** (AB-bounded, mostly 0.5 lines, so
+  it rides on P(0)).
+- **tb-v1 does not improve** → hypothesis **WRONG**, the **mean-weakness /
+  MLB-similarity branch REOPENS**.
 
-**Hypothesis to test in that order:** the negative binomial mismatches those two
-stats' structure — `total_bases` is a **weighted sum**, not an event count, and
-`hits` is **bounded by at-bats**, so both violate the unbounded-count assumption
-that `walks`/`runs`/`doubles` satisfy.
+**Verdict n-blocked:** 0 settled TB rows carry tb-v1 yet; first settle is
+tomorrow. `scripts/tb-compound-holdout.sql` is TB-rows-only and direction-aligned.
 
-> **This diagnosis REMOVES the MLB similarity build from the critical path.** That
-> branch assumed a *global* mean weakness; the mean is fine or better on three of
-> six stat families. Similarity may be worth building later — **on evidence, not
-> on this.**
+**Then:** `archetype_x_archetype` → retire/rewrite `bayesianEngine`.
 
-**Then:** `archetype_x_archetype` (matchup's upper rung) → retire/rewrite
-`bayesianEngine` (keys on 7 non-live stat names; defaults count stats to Gaussian).
-
-### FOUR challengers accruing in parallel — do NOT re-run early
+### FIVE challengers accruing in parallel — do NOT re-run early
 Verified firing on a real prod snapshot (293 grades), not inferred:
 
 | axis | coverage | mean \|nudge\| | holdout query |
@@ -63,6 +57,7 @@ Verified firing on a real prod snapshot (293 grades), not inferred:
 | **environment** | **84.6%** | 0.057 | *(shares the arch-v1 pattern)* |
 | **matchup** (`batter_own_split`) | **82.9%** | 0.015 | `scripts/matchup-axis-holdout.sql` |
 | **opportunity** | 30.0% | 0.142 | `scripts/opportunity-axis-holdout.sql` |
+| **tb-v1** (compound total_bases) | **10/10 TB props** | *(shape, not a nudge)* | pre-registered: improves → `hits` next; doesn't → similarity reopens |
 | **proj-v1.1** (distribution ladder) | **94.2%** | *(forms the projection, not a nudge)* | 437 settled — aligned gap **0.252 vs 0.352**, concentrated in `hits`+`total_bases` |
 
 All three orthogonal (r ≈ 0 vs projection, `p_win`, line and each other). Each