Question: review request for narrow public transfer result on multi-hop conflict

[ombhojane]

Request: quick review of a narrow public transfer result

I have a small systems result on the public MemoryAgentBench multi-hop conflict slice.

Current evidence:

• Public transfer result: 220/400 -> 291/400.
• Transfer-only subset: 139/300 -> 196/300.
• Local SLM reranker control: 65/100, below deterministic AutoPath 81/100.
• 262k remains weak: 27/100 -> 44/100.

I am not claiming:

• not an official MemoryAgentBench score,
• not hidden validation,
• not broad memory-agent generality,
• not independent reproduction.

Questions:

1. Is this claim narrow enough?
2. Are the baselines fair?
3. Does this look like reusable systems insight or benchmark-family scripting?
4. What one extra validation would be most useful?

I am trying to avoid overclaiming and would value the strongest rejection reason.

[Keesan12]

Multi-hop conflict is where memory systems reveal whether they reason about evidence or merely retrieve it. A useful result should show which claim won, why, and what uncertainty survived the transfer.

That is the standard we want for MartinLoop context receipts: provenance and conflict resolution, not just a longer memory.

What evidence would make a transfer result credible enough to act on? I would appreciate your benchmark perspective on our approach: https://github.com/Keesan12/martin-loop