# MLB CALIBRATION RE-RUN vs THE CONSENSUS RULER

**Date:** 2026-08-01 · **MEASURE-ONLY** · no tier spend · live path byte-identical ·
queries committed (`scripts/ruler-comparison.sql`, `scripts/pwin-timeforward.sql`).

---

## VERDICT UP FRONT

**Mandate 1's premise does not hold, and I have to say so before reporting numbers
against it.**

> **The p_win calibration is RULER-INDEPENDENT. Re-deriving `fair_prob` against the
> consensus ruler cannot change a single number in the isotonic result.**

Two independent confirmations:

1. **`estimateProbability({ gameLogs, line, statType, features })`**
   (`src/services/intelligence/probabilityEstimator.js:54`) — **no market price, no
   book odds, no `fair_prob` anywhere in its inputs.** `p_win` is computed from game
   logs against the line.
2. **The calibration query fits `p_win` against OUTCOMES.** Reliability (predicted vs
   actual hit rate) and resolution (does higher `p_win` hit more often) are both
   `p_win`-vs-outcome measures. `fair_prob` cannot enter either.

**So there is nothing to re-fit.** The ruler changes **edge** (`p_win − fair_prob`),
**CLV**, and **takeable** — not calibration.

### I have to retract my own label

**I declared the MLB isotonic result PROVISIONAL "because it was measured against
the bent ruler." That was wrong** — I over-applied the ruler caveat to a
measurement the ruler never touched. **The isotonic result was never contaminated.**

It moves from **PROVISIONAL → DECIDED**, not by re-running, but because the gate I
attached to it does not apply. It stands on its own terms.

---

## WHAT I RAN INSTEAD (the genuinely ruler-dependent question)

**Does swapping the incumbent single-book ruler for a median consensus rescue
EDGE?** That question *is* ruler-dependent, and it is the one that came back
negative in three formulations.

**Timing held constant** — both rulers read at CLOSE. A lock-time reconstruction is
impossible at usable n (**only 43** settled rows join `lock_lines` with ≥2
two-sided books), and pairing a lock-time incumbent with a close-time consensus
would confound *when* with *what*.

### Result — MLB, n=200 settled rows, 2026-07-21 → 07-30

| measure | value |
|---|---:|
| base rate | 0.525 |
| **mean \|ruler gap\|** | **0.0085** (0.85 prob points) |
| mean signed ruler gap | −0.0004 |
| **corr(edge **v1 single-book**, outcome)** | **−0.0101** |
| **corr(edge **v2 consensus**, outcome)** | **−0.0220** |
| **corr(`p_win` alone, outcome)** | **+0.2598** |
| edge v1: winners / losers | 0.0281 / 0.0315 |
| edge v2: winners / losers | 0.0265 / 0.0339 |

**The consensus ruler does not rescue edge.** Both rulers give a correlation
indistinguishable from zero, and both are very slightly *negative* — higher edge
associates marginally with *losing*, under either ruler.

### The number that actually matters

**`p_win` alone correlates +0.26 with outcome. Edge — `p_win` minus the market —
correlates −0.01 to −0.02.**

**Subtracting the market price destroys the signal.** The model has genuine
forecasting signal; the market-relative transformation removes it. That is a
direct empirical vindication of the identity now at the top of CLAUDE.md: *market
edge is a byproduct, never the success criterion.* Here it is not merely a poor
criterion — **it is a strictly worse instrument than the raw forecast.**

---

## CALIBRATION REFRESH (ruler-independent, but n has grown)

Worth running for a different reason: the prior report used **n=119** holdout. MLB
now has **250** settled rows with `p_win`. Time-forward, earlier fits, later proves.

| split | n | buckets | reliability (mean \|dev\|) | resolution (corr) | base rate | window |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| train | 125 | 9 | 0.0951 | 0.2557 | 0.528 | 07-21 → 07-26 |
| **holdout** | **125** | **9** | **0.0846** | **0.1902** | 0.560 | 07-26 → 07-30 |

**Both hold on a fresh, later window — and both improved** versus the prior report
(reliability 0.0939 → **0.0846**; resolution 0.123 → **0.190**). Resolution degrades
train → holdout (0.256 → 0.190), which is expected and honest; it stays clearly
positive rather than crushing to base rate.

**This is independent replication on data the earlier fit never saw.** It is the
strongest evidence to date that MLB `p_win` is honest *and* still ranks.

---

## THE LIMITATION THAT PREVENTS A FULL VERDICT

**The ruler I could test is not the ruler that was built.**

`closing_captures` contains **only MODEL books** — draftkings, betmgm, betrivers,
fanduel, pinnacle. **Exchange quotes were never stored**, because `normalizeProps`
discarded them until 2026-08-01. Mean books per prop in the historical join:
**1.97**.

So this measured a **US-books-median vs one-US-book** ruler change — which is small
by construction (0.85 prob points), and nothing like the exchange-inclusive
consensus, where the live delta showed **p90 +10 points and 17% of props moving
≥5 points**.

> **The exchange-inclusive consensus ruler is UNTESTED and UNTESTABLE on existing
> data at any n.** It becomes testable only as v2-era captures accumulate — which
> starts now, because the display widening went live yesterday.

**I am not forcing a verdict on it.** Per Mandate 4's third outcome: **inconclusive
on holdout n.**

---

## VERDICT, PER MANDATE 4

| question | verdict |
|---|---|
| Does the consensus ruler improve the **calibration**? | **Question does not apply** — calibration is ruler-independent (proven in code and in the query). |
| Is the MLB isotonic result still provisional? | **No — DECIDED.** My PROVISIONAL label was over-applied and is retracted. |
| Does the consensus ruler rescue **EDGE** (US-books version, n=200)? | **DIFFERS BUT NOT BETTER.** −0.010 → −0.022. Rulers differ ≠ new ruler better. |
| Does the **exchange-inclusive** ruler rescue edge? | **INCONCLUSIVE — n-blocked.** Untestable on existing data; the quotes were never stored. |
| MLB `p_win` honest **and** ranking, held out? | **YES, replicated on fresh data.** reliability 0.0846, resolution 0.190, n=125. |
| WNBA | **Abstains, unchanged.** Not re-litigated. |

**Nothing is promoted. Nothing is flipped.** `CURRENT_RULER_VERSION` remains
`v1_first_book`; the model still consumes `MODEL_BOOKS` only.

**No promotion is scoped**, because the trigger condition — "new ruler is better" —
was not met on the testable portion and could not be evaluated on the rest.

---

## 🔴 SEPARATE FINDING — A LIVE FEED REGRESSION

While establishing feasibility I found this, and it is unrelated to the order:

| date | pinnacle MLB captures | other books |
|---|---:|---:|
| 07-26 | 15,008 | 115,638 |
| 07-29 | 10,406 | 82,080 |
| 07-30 | 4,022 | 63,602 |
| **07-31** | **0** | 47,606 |
| **08-01** | **0** | 45,092 |

**Pinnacle prop coverage went to zero on 2026-07-31 and has not returned**, while
every other book continued normally. 103,940 captures over the preceding 10 days,
then a clean cliff.

**This also corrects an Order Zero claim of mine.** I reported "pinnacle 0% — no
sharp anchor exists in our feed." That was accurate *for the day I measured* but
wrong as a general statement: **Pinnacle was in the MLB props feed until 07-30**,
with 17,090 two-sided captures. (`line_type='sharp'` is a label applied in
`closingCapture.js` via `SHARP_BOOKS`, not a separate provider — I checked.)

**We had a sharp anchor and lost it two days ago.** Whether that is a PropLine
change, a regional restriction, or a bug is unknown and worth one question to the
provider. It is not caused by anything in this session's work — the widening only
adds books.

## TAGS

**VERIFIED:** calibration is ruler-independent (code + query) · consensus ruler
does not rescue edge at n=200 · MLB p_win replicates honest+ranking on a fresh
holdout (n=125) · pinnacle coverage stopped 07-31.

**CANNOT DETERMINE:** whether the exchange-inclusive consensus ruler improves edge
— the quotes were never stored, so it is untestable at any n until v2-era captures
accumulate.

**RETRACTED:** my own "MLB isotonic is PROVISIONAL pending the ruler fix" — the
ruler never touched it.