With one decisive fact per scenario the corpus isolates the mechanism:
obtaining the deciding fact predicts the outcome 14/14 in both arms, and not
obtaining it predicts failure in 9 of 10 and 8 of 10. Against that, the gate
changes nothing measurable. Asked the user 14/24 against 15/24, obtained the
deciding fact 14/24 against 14/24, passed 15/24 against 16/24, every exact
McNemar p = 1.000, and the paired pass-rate difference 5 points in off's favour
with a 95% interval of -25% to +35%. At 20 pairs a 40-point effect is ruled out;
a 15-to-20-point one is not.
The gate does fire - denials in 22 of 24 gated trials - so the failure is in the
conversion. timezone-daily-rollup fired four times out of four and produced no
question at all. Every question the gate raised is about code structure, while
every deciding fact in this corpus is an external contract.
Record the two scenario-design faults the earlier runs exposed, and the bound
the correction imposes: moving shape into the prompt also signposts the
ambiguity, which raises asking in both arms, so the claim is limited to the
signposted regime.
montjeffrey
c9f270def1