[AdaWorldAPI]

This adds one board entry, .claude/board/entries/2026-10-22-coresearch-pal256-evidence-probes.md, and regenerates the entries index. It is documentation only.

Answer

Fisher-z and tanh encoding over Palette256 preserves rank and bounds the readout, but it does not prevent confident wrong output. A saturated readout carries no out-of-distribution signal (Hein et al., Thm 3.1).

What can prevent it is a gate in front of the decision. The gate answers only when four conditions hold:

1. Each source counted once. Revision checks stamps and refuses to pool overlapping evidence, as ONA does. Under D10 this applies to Hebbian revision as well.
2. Confidence only on a tree. A cyclic hop path can rank, but it cannot raise confidence.
3. The input is in support. This is judged by distance to the codebook centroids, not by readout magnitude.
4. A clear margin. The answer's lower bound beats the runner-up's upper bound.

The deciding probe, P-D4, scores the answer-or-abstain output with Brier and log score, on block hold-out data. Weak dependence (I-NOISE-FLOOR-JIRAK) means iid splits and iid bounds cannot be used.

Contents

• A crosswalk with a verdict for each idea.
• Nine pre-registered probes. The first three are P-D4, P-E2 (stamps) and P-D3 (out-of-distribution detection).
• A dedup recommendation for set C (test(pal256): immutable needle vs pairwise distribution contract #1709–test(math-foundry): typed tanh/atanh rewrites for NARS, Bayes and Fisher #1717) against set D (probe(palette): immutable reference frame and salience-weighted signal retention #1718–probe(hebb): saturation-damped local plasticity versus episodic MRU baseline #1722).
• A list of what was not searched.

The council adopts nothing. The operator decides which probes to run.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

• 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

• Source mode: Auto
• Repository: Unavailable
• Branch: Unavailable
• File: No configuration file from this repository applied
• Commit: Unavailable
• Layers: Organization UI
• Review profile: CHILL
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: e1327700-b2bf-4bb8-9a14-36624406c4bf

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Warning

Billing warning: we have not been able to collect payment for this subscription for more than 72 hours. Please update the payment method or pay any pending invoices in Billing to avoid service interruption.

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-22T21:56:17.805241Z	655f423	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 655f4237be

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".