# PRE-REGISTRATION — A8: do the shadow-fired hits factors improve the forecast?

**Status: PRE-REGISTERED, NOT RUN.** Written 2026-08-11, before any accrual
exists, so the decision rule cannot be chosen after seeing the answer.

---

## 1. WHAT IS BEING TESTED, AND WHY IT IS A NEW TEST

A5 measured that all three hits factors were skipped on **596/596** real graded
props — `prop.opponent` and `prop.opposing_pitcher` were never set by anything,
so `positionOaa`, `throws` and `pitcherHardHit` resolved on **zero** rows. A6
resolved those keys and fired the factors in **shadow**: 248 fires on 308 props,
median would-be multiplier 1.017, range 0.803–1.250.

So `pitcher_contact_profile` and `defense_by_direction` were never "proven and
then disconnected." They were proven on an **audit reconstruction that the
production path never ran**, and then withdrawn (A0) because the reader that
produced that proof was 16–25% corrupt.

**This is therefore a NEW hypothesis, not a re-test.** It counts as a fresh test
against the cumulative Bonferroni denominator (`testLedger`). The S87 rule that
re-asking the same question on more data is not a new shot on goal does not apply:
the question is different. Previously — "does this factor improve a reconstructed
audit?" Now — "does the multiplier this factor actually produces, on the rows
where it actually fires, improve the served forecast out of sample?"

Three factors × one stat = **3 new hypotheses** to record before the run.

---

## 2. THE UNIT OF EVIDENCE

One testable pair = a `model_snapshots` row that carries **both**:

- `factor_inputs.would_fire` — written at grade time, pre-game, never applied
- `outcome` — settled from a box score by `snapshotSettlementService`

A `would_fire` with no settled outcome is **not yet evidence** and must not be
counted toward N.

Rows are eligible only if they also satisfy the standing gates:
`model_version = engine1@2026-08-07-fullwindow` (A3) and
`quarantine_reason` not `nontakeable_book%`.

---

## 3. THE TEST — TWO PARTS, BOTH REQUIRED

Run per factor, on **rows where that factor fired** (`would_fire.per_factor`
contains it). Scoring a factor on rows it did not touch dilutes any real effect
toward zero (S77).

**Baseline** = the served forecast, i.e. `p_win` as actually graded (the factors
were off).
**Conditioned** = `clamp(p_win × would_fire.multiplier, 0.01, 0.99)` — exactly
what would have been served had the factor been live.

Adjudicated by `factorGate.adjudicate()`:

1. **MOVEMENT** — mean `|Δp|` ≥ `MIN_MOVEMENT` (0.01). Movement alone is
   **THEATER** and is named as such.
2. **IMPROVEMENT** — paired bootstrap on **Brier**, cluster-resampled, CI
   excluding zero at `1 − 0.05/tests` where `tests` is the programme-lifetime
   cumulative count from `testLedger`.

`cluster = game_id`. Verified: for all three factors the treatment entity
(`player|opponent`, `starter_id`, `player_key`) is more numerous than the games,
so `factorGate`'s coarser-of rule resolves to the game. **`MIN_CLUSTERS = 40`
distinct settled games is the binding constraint**, not `MIN_N`.

### Pre-registered outcomes

| verdict | meaning | consequence |
|---|---|---|
| `PROVES` | moves AND corrected CI below zero | candidate for A9 live turn-on — still a separate order |
| `NOT_PROVEN_AT_CORRECTED_BAR` | point estimate improves, CI spans zero | keep accruing; do NOT turn on |
| `THEATER` | moves, Brier delta ≥ 0 | **do not turn on, ever, at this multiplier** |
| `INERT` | mean shift < 0.01 | wiring is pointless; drop the factor |
| `CANDIDATE_PENDING_SAMPLE` | below N or clusters | keep accruing |

**Pre-registered fallback:** if a factor returns `THEATER`, that is a real result
and it must be recorded as such — a factor that moves ~80% of the board and does
not improve Brier is the arch-v1 failure repeating, and the correct action is to
leave it off, not to re-tune the multiplier until it passes.

**A `PROVES` does not turn anything on.** It makes the case for A9, which needs
its own before/after on the served board.

---

## 4. WHAT WOULD INVALIDATE THE RUN

- **Fewer than 40 distinct settled games** for that factor → refuse, report N.
- **`would_fire` not re-derivable** from `would_fire.shadow_inputs` on any row
  (A6's recompute check) → the evidence is not trustworthy; stop.
- **Any row whose `would_fire` was written after first pitch** — settlement
  already refuses post-hoc rows, and the same rule applies here.
- **Keys resolved from anything other than the pre-game lineup + probable
  pitcher.** A retrospectively-derived opponent would make this a reconstruction
  again, which is the whole thing A5/A6 exist to avoid.

---

## 5. WHEN IT CAN RUN

Measured accrual (settled MLB hits, repaired-champion rows):

| | 2026-08-07 | 2026-08-08 |
|---|---|---|
| settled hits rows | 758 | 1,096 |
| distinct settled players | 208 | 188 |
| **distinct settled games** | **11** | **10** |

Shadow fire rates (A6, 2026-08-09): `pitcher_contact_profile` 80.5%,
`defense_by_direction` 60.1%, `platoon_severity` 47.7%.

At ~925 settled hits rows and **~10.5 distinct settled games per slate**:

| factor | rows/slate | slates to `MIN_N` 500 | **slates to `MIN_CLUSTERS` 40** | binding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `pitcher_contact_profile` | ~745 | 1 | **~4** | clusters |
| `defense_by_direction` | ~556 | 1 | **~4** | clusters |
| `platoon_severity` | ~441 | 2 | **~4** | clusters |

**Accrual starts at DEPLOY, not today** — 0 rows carry `factor_inputs` now. Add
the settlement lag (a slate settles the following day), so:

> **A8 is runnable ≈ 5 slates after A6/A7 deploy** — about **5 days**, for all
> three factors together. Nothing accrues until the deploy lands.

---

## 6. WHAT THIS DOES NOT DECIDE

It does not reinstate `defense_by_direction` or `pitcher_contact_profile`. Those
withdrawals stand on their own cause (drawn through a corrupt reader). A `PROVES`
here is evidence about **the live multiplier on rows where it fires** — a
different claim from the original verdicts, and it should be recorded as a new
finding rather than as a reinstatement.