Nothing built. Docs only. The premise was that this is cheap assembly over
existing aggregates; verified, it is not.
0.1 FILTERABILITY — the endpoints are NOT filterable. Probed live:
/api/ledger/accuracy?sport=mlb -> total 937
?sport=wnba -> total 937
?window=7 -> total 937
identical payloads; the params are ignored (the req.query reads at
routes/ledger.js:61-63 belong to a different route than /accuracy at :68).
Sport and tier CAN be sliced client-side from /api/accuracy's sports map and
/api/ledger/model's by_tier. TIME WINDOW CANNOT — window_days is fixed at 30
inside getModelAggregate with no param and no stored series, so
"accuracy over time" has no data source.
0.3 CLV CANNOT LEAD WITH A NUMBER. /api/ledger/model exposes the aggregate, and
live it returns beat_close_pct = null and clv_distribution = null despite
clv_sample 937. They are null BY DESIGN: ledgerService publishes them only
when clvCaptureReliable() passes, and it does not — the capture is still the
starved instrument the 07-28 repair improved but did not finish. The trap to
avoid is exact: clv_beat/clv_sample = 34/937 = 3.6% is computable and would
be WRONG, because the value is null due to instrument distrust, not a missing
division. Publishing it would be the marketing fabrication this order most
forbids. CLV can only lead with an honest absence.
0.2 The honest-record laws are ALREADY enforced at source: buckets return
A pct:null (n=2), B 60% (512), C 57% (413), D pct:null, F pct:null — thin
tiers already refuse to round. C genuinely sits below B, which is the
unflattering truth and must be shown as-is.
0.4 CALIBRATION CURVE has no data source — clv_distribution is null and there is
no claimed-vs-actual endpoint; the 07-26 calibration work was a one-off
read-only measurement, never wired to a served surface.
BUILDABLE NOW: tier hit-rates by sport with existing hollows preserved,
client-side sport/tier filtering, the capped 3-call sample, and honest state copy
including a CLV not-yet-publishable panel that names the reliability guard.
NEEDS ITS OWN ORDER FIRST: CLV as a leading number (blocked on capture
reliability, not presentation), accuracy over time (needs a param or daily
series), the calibration curve (needs a claimed-vs-actual endpoint).
RECOMMENDS shipping tier-record-forward with an honest CLV building panel rather
than CLV-forward — CLV-forward with a null cannot lead, and with 3.6% would be a
lie. That preserves the premise's strongest claim (a real thin honest record
out-credibilizes a fake fat one) without inventing a number.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QJs13VsyiSKYQP6rj3NNmc
