builtbykev
aa1228ec42
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