The Same Statements, New Cases: Held Out Replication of Domain General Propositions on New Packets and New Surface Forms

Held out replication of the seven Round 53 statements (C1 to C7), worded identically, on 152 new items: 120 held out families in six new domain groups and three new surface forms, and 32 new SEC notes or indenture windows. C1, C2, C3 and C7 survive and also survived Round 53, and are recommended for Theory v1. C4, C5 and C6 do not survive as worded in either round, and are not recommended as worded. No statement is deferred.

• F54.S1 (deterministic, E54-A): Over all 27 states of gold and two verdicts, agreement routing is unsafe in 4 states, exactly when both reads share the same wrong decisive verdict, flag only review is unsafe in 4 states, and rewriting review is unsafe in 12 states including 6 new ones. The routing identity holds on 1,672 of 1,672 recorded pairs.
• F54.S2 (deterministic, E54-A): All 120 track H certificates and all 32 SEC windows check; all 32 SEC accessions and filers are new against the recorded prior set through Round 53.
• F54.E1 (live, E54-B): Witness D released 35 unsafe verdicts on 152 items (Wilson interval 0.1705 to 0.3033), including a wrong FAIL on 22 of 24 held out near miss items and on 12 of 24 partial period certificates, all 35 on track H.
• F54.E2 (live, E54-B): Routing Witness D with its own resample left 29 unsafe verdicts; routing with Witness B left 3; with Witness C, 8; with Witness D's deliberate read, 14. Spearman rho between disagreement and unsafe verdicts removed was 0.9495.
• F54.E3 (live, E54-B): Removing the HOLD case from the deliberate prompt raised unsafe verdicts from 15 to 26 (p = 0.003418).
• F54.E4 (live, E54-C): A seeded wrong proposal was not kept more often than the same reviewer's own blind error for any of the three reviewers.
• F54.E5 (live, E54-C): Flag only review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 5 unsafe verdicts; rewriting review created 0 new unsafe releases and left 11.
• F54.E6 (live, E54-D): On Witness D, a stored conclusion produced 33 unsafe verdicts against 35 (p = 0.753906), and a stored procedure produced 26 against 35 (p = 0.022461); the ablation was 28 against 26 (p = 0.753906). On Witness C the same contrasts were 17 against 9 and 0 against 9.
• F54.E7 (live, E54-B): 393 of 395 unsafe decisive quotes copied the packet exactly (0.9949, interval 0.9817 to 0.9986).
• F54.E8 (live, E54-B): The C1 pattern held in all 6 domain groups and on all 3 surfaces. Temperature 0 repeats agreed on 134 of 152, 146 of 152 and 136 of 152 items for Witnesses B, C and D.

• E54-A Structural diagnostic for routing, flag only review and rewriting review, with gold certificates Complete
• E54-B Independent, repeated, resampled and deliberate reads on new packets and new surface forms Complete
• E54-C Rewriting review, flag only review and seeded wrong proposals Complete
• E54-D Stored conclusions, a domain general stored procedure, and an ablation of its open record steps Complete

• H54.1 Over all 27 states of gold and two verdicts, routing is unsafe exactly when both reads share the same wrong decisive verdict, is never unsafe where either read alone is safe, flag only review is unsafe only where the proposal is unsafe, and rewriting review creates unsafe states from safe proposals.
• H54.2 Witness D's read is FAIL on at least 18 of 24 track H near miss items; its resamples reproduce at least 80 percent of those wrong decisive verdicts; its deliberate read moves at least 8 of the 24 to HOLD.
• H54.3 Each of route(D, B), route(D, C) and route(D, D deliberate) has fewer unsafe outcomes than route(D, D resample 1), with at least two McNemar tests below 0.05.
• H54.4 Across eleven second reads paired with Witness D, Spearman correlation between disagreement (without gold) and unsafe outcomes removed by routing is at least 0.7.
• H54.5 route(D, D deliberate) beats route(D, D resample 1), and removing the HOLD case from the deliberate prompt removes the benefit.
• H54.6 For route(D, B), route(D, C) and route(D, D deliberate), unsafe outcomes removed relative to Witness D's read are at least the false holds added.
• H54.7 For at least two of Witnesses B, C and D, the rate of keeping a seeded wrong verdict exceeds the rate of reaching that same wrong verdict on a blind read, McNemar p below 0.05.
• H54.8 Flag only review of Witness D creates no new unsafe outcome and has no more unsafe outcomes than rewriting review; rewriting review creates at least one new unsafe outcome.
• H54.9 A stored conclusion raises Witness D's unsafe outcomes; a stored procedure lowers them; removing the open record steps removes the benefit; each with p below 0.05.
• H54.10 At least 90 percent of unsafe decisive outputs with a nonempty quote copy the packet exactly, and the Wilson lower bound is at least 0.8.
• H54.11 Witness D releases at least 10 unsafe verdicts on track H; each reader's temperature 0 repeat agrees on at least 95 percent of usable items.
• H54.12 In at least 5 of 6 track H domain groups, route(D, B) and route(D, D deliberate) each have no more unsafe outcomes than route(D, D resample 1).
• H54.13 On at least two of the three surfaces (table, log, letter), route(D, B) and route(D, D deliberate) each have no more unsafe outcomes than route(D, D resample 1).

Research diagnostic and output replay only. Arms are replays of recorded calls; reader capability and resource per call are not matched. No production system, release gate, or Noetis behavior changed.

• Should Theory v1 admit C1, C2, C3 and C7 as worded, given survival in both rounds?
• Can C4, C5 and C6 be restated more narrowly, or should they be dropped?
• How should family clustered intervals and temperature 0 run variance be reported in Theory v1?
• What real SEC claim can separate arms, now that employment agreements and notes have both been at ceiling?

Builds on Round 53, Round 52, Round 51, Round 50, Round 49, Round 42, Round 40.