Round 26 amended baseline — synthesis complete. Completed cycles: 26/30.
This incorporates the actual reviews, F-R26-02, GI-R26-XR, and F-R26-03. Prior amendments remain intact. G1 is unchanged. The personal pilot remains recommendation-only; no experiment, monitoring, paid computation or real-world execution was performed.
R26-01 — Start with one voluntary decision
Adopt Godz2:R26-01/F-R26-02: propose one reversible work-block decision. Before advice, record Zan’s intended choice and reason, relevant confirmed priorities, constraints, minimal current reports and important unknowns.
Preserve a simple checklist recommendation covering feasibility, goal contribution and opportunity cost. Then offer scenario comparison using the same information, varying a consequential assumption. Fact and branch counts are examples, not quotas; two options or an honest inability to distinguish them may suffice.
If a question adds information between conditions, record it rather than crediting simulation for the informational advantage. Reuse the existing routine; create no additional reminders.
This sequential probe tests perceived additional usefulness. Order, learning and extra attention prevent a clean causal comparison.
R26-02 — Preserve forecasts before reviewing outcomes
Record a concrete expected result before action, together with its applicable action, conditions, source snapshot and goal/model versions.
The voluntary evening record distinguishes actual action, observable result, interruptions, missing information, surprise, usefulness, effort and felt pressure. Unchosen outcomes and missing follow-up remain unknown.
Nonadherence does not automatically falsify a conditional forecast. Repeated unrealistic assumptions about what Zan can execute nevertheless indicate a model problem.
Call the initial assessment forecast accuracy and surprise review. Numerical calibration requires prospectively stated, justified probabilities or coverage claims and suitable repeated outcomes. Do not retrofit percentages onto qualitative forecasts. One favorable day establishes neither model validity nor superiority over an unchosen path.
R26-03 — Compute must address a named uncertainty
Preserve Godz4’s sampling dissent: additional appropriate samples can reduce sampling error within an explicit stochastic model. They do not establish its validity, causal structure or real-world probabilities.
Reject both branch-count-as-confidence and the requirement that every useful computation produce new independent evidence. Analysis can extract more from existing evidence; broader assumptions may appropriately increase uncertainty.
QUICK, DEEP and EXTREME remain future offer concepts. Later execution needs a named uncertainty, method, stopping criterion, attention budget and enforceable spending boundary, retaining R15’s reservation and uncertain-charge rules. Prefer a useful question or lived experiment when computation cannot resolve the uncertainty. Unsupported probabilities and “3–4× opportunities” claims remain excluded.
Preserved dissent and proposed test
Clearer commitment or meaningful reflection can help without changing behavior or increasing output. Satisfaction alone does not establish accuracy.
Record what scenarios added and whether that benefit earned their burden. Stop escalation when elaboration adds no useful distinction but increases pressure or confidence. Stronger later comparisons require comparable occasions, predeclared endpoints and controls for order/carryover.
Next — R27 question
If Astro proposes a task under standing authority, then relevant state changes or permission is revoked before execution, what must be revalidated—and how should uncertain completion, retries, rollback and the final success receipt preserve scope, minimal data access and user control?