Copilot, accepted — and the sharpest catch of the six, because it is
the rationale contradicting the operator two paragraphs below it.
Round 1 rewrote the CHAIN_THRESHOLD comment to say a well-shaped
pointer "does clear 0.8" and cited 100%/80% as the evidence. This
threshold is compared with `>`, so 80% would FAIL an 0.8 bar; the
example refuted the sentence it was offered in support of. It was also
stale: 100%/80% was an intermediate build, and the shipped state
measures 100%/100%.
Both copies now cite 100%/100% as the clearing evidence and keep
100%/80% only as the residual-noise figure, saying explicitly that it
is not an example of clearing the bar.
While checking the claim I found the docs copy needed the same care for
a different reason: `passesThreshold` is strict for the chain and
INCLUSIVE for the first move (`rate > t` vs `rate >= t`, skill-eval.mjs
:558), and 0.8 is the constant for the inclusive one. So "0.8 is
compared strictly" is false as literally read. The docs now say a
*chain* bar of 0.8 would be the strict one, name the operator for both,
and spell out the consequence at RUNS=5 — only 5/5 passes, 4/5 does not.
No functional change; CHAIN_THRESHOLD is still 0.5, still strict.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EQVdemwgUhh45yzeaRSLhW
Signed-off-by: cliffhall <cliff@futurescale.com>
03af5b966f