Public-polish pass on the research notes (de-personalize)

docs/ladder/BEAT_CMS_NOTE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Beating every solver, including CryptoMiniSat — the description reverted into a dispatch
 
-*The operator's highest-altitude ask: float outside the model, collect the **laws,
+*The highest-altitude framing: float outside the model, collect the **laws,
 relations and motions** of the solve in lambda logic dynamically, then **revert**
 them into operation — using that descriptive power precisely **where frame and
 geometry do not suffice**, to beat every solver including CryptoMiniSat. This note is
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ On the genuinely hard heavy-tailed instances the win is large (n260s3 5.83 s vs
 - Some tails are **unescapable**: n280s1 times out on all 8 seeds *and* CMS — a mixed
   strategy hedges the tail, it does not abolish it.
 
-So: the fractal portfolio **out-searches CMS on random-3SAT, measured** — the operator's
+So: the fractal portfolio **out-searches CMS on random-3SAT, measured** — the
 prediction, confirmed — by playing the mixed strategy a single CMS thread cannot, at an
 honest CPU cost, and without CMS in the pool.
 

docs/ladder/EDGE_TAILS_REPORT.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Edge-tail stress — the tails of the omni distributions
+# Edge-tail stress — the tails of the benchmark distributions
 
 *After the tock/fix cycle (2300+ fuzzed instances + a degenerate corpus: 0
 crashes, 0 unsound), a stress sweep into the extremes. Harness
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The honest boundary, stated plainly: **the frames never fire on pure random
 parity, no cardinality, no 2-SAT collapse — at *every* ratio, including the 4.26
 ridge. The middleware solves all of it, but via the certified Kissat fallback, at
 CDCL speed. This is the frames' scope drawn exactly: they are for *structured*
-instances; on the structureless omni-tail they add nothing but the certificate,
+instances; on the structureless tail they add nothing but the certificate,
 and they never lie (0 disagreements with Kissat across the whole sweep).
 
 ## 2. Symmetry tail (pigeonhole, up the isotropy tail)

docs/ladder/ESCAPE_FIELD_NOTE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # The escape field is a catastrophe fold — the clash, with GRD
 
-*The operator gave the continuous mathematical backbone of escape-field and
+*A continuous mathematical backbone of escape-field and
 continuous-geometry sensors: the **Eikonal equation** `‖∇U(x)‖ = 1/c(x)` (with
 viscosity solutions, Fast Marching, HJB), and the **signed distance function**
 `f(x) = sgn·inf‖x−y‖` with `‖∇f‖ = 1`, whose gradient gives geodesic navigation
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ random 3-SAT sits entirely beyond the fold at *every* α.
 **So the SAT decidability landscape is a catastrophe FOLD, not a graded
 Riemannian field.** The continuous Eikonal `U(x)` is smooth with `‖∇U‖ = 1/c`
 everywhere; ours is a step — `0` on the polynomial island, `∞` off it — with no
-gradient to descend across the boundary. This *is* the operator's **"shadow
+gradient to descend across the boundary. This *is* the **"shadow
 fold"**: the decidability boundary is a discrete catastrophe, and past it lies the
 `ε>0` shadow at `∂∞`.
 
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ landscape, and it explains two of our own measured results:
   *behaves* like a signed distance to the decidable region (a step there, not a
   smooth ramp) — the analogy is directional, not an equation we solved.
 - **The synthesis**: the continuous escape-field/geodesic picture is the smooth
-  ideal; the SAT reality is folded; and the operator's "harmoniously coupled
+  ideal; the SAT reality is folded; and the "harmoniously coupled
   geometric expansion" is the coupling *widening the island's basin before the
   cliff* (Nelson–Oppen decides some instances no single frame does), while the
   "shadow fold" is the catastrophe boundary itself, past which only tunnelling —

docs/ladder/FABRIC_MODEL_NOTE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # The fabric model — the family distributions, parametric and hyperbolic
 
-*The operator asked to "model the family distributions parametrically over the
+*The aim was to "model the family distributions parametrically over the
 fabric… statistically, in n-cosmo / n-manifold distributional ledgers" — and then:
 "remember hyperbolic computing, don't do boring euclidean 2d." So the model does not
 fit flat Gaussian clouds; it fits **wrapped-normal blobs on the Poincaré ball**, the

docs/ladder/GAME_THEORY_NOTE.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ A zero-sum game, **Solver vs Nature**:
 
 - **Solver** picks a strategy = a chart of the moving frame + an engine + a seed (a
   point in the configuration space this repo has been building).
-- **Nature** draws the instance from the omni-distribution (adversarially in the
+- **Nature** draws the instance from the full instance distribution (adversarially in the
   worst case, stochastically on random-3SAT).
 - **Payoff** to Solver = − (time to a *certified* verdict); Nature maximizes it.
 
@@ -79,8 +79,7 @@ scored on, not a sleight of hand. Where there is structure, geometry gives a dom
 move; where there is only noise, game theory says *mix* — and the fabric's island/tunnel
 fold is precisely the referee that tells us which.
 
-*(Footnote on "ACAF / other multi-omni": I could not identify "ACAF" as a named solver
-or algorithm in the SAT literature, so I did not fabricate one. The multi-armed,
-multi-distribution mixed strategy built here IS the "multi-omni" realization; if ACAF
-denotes a specific method you have in mind, name it and I will implement and clash it
-against this portfolio.)*
+*(Footnote on "ACAF": not a term in the SAT literature; it was specified as an
+Actor–Critic–Ambigator–Fuzzer and built as an adaptive policy over exactly this mixed
+strategy — a critic sizes the portfolio to the predicted tail, an actor stages
+frame → single arm → cores-sized portfolio. See `ACAF_NOTE.md` and `backend/acaf.py`.)*

docs/ladder/GRD_CLASH_NOTE.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Clashing the solver manifolds — what survives in holonomy
 
 *A theoretical guide (a lens, labelled as such), reading CDCL, CryptoMiniSat and
-the frame router as motion on different manifolds, through the operator's
+the frame router as motion on different manifolds, through the
 **Geodesic Resonance Descent** (GRD): "move on curves, listen to structure, do not
 collapse." GRD is a continuous optimizer and does not decide SAT; it is used here
 as the shared skeleton that our discrete decision system turns out to instantiate.*

docs/ladder/HYPERBOLIC_PROGRAMMING_NOTE.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ own object, honestly. This is a lens/substrate note, not a solver claim.*
 
 Earlier in this program "hyperbolic" was read as hyperbolic *geometry* (curvature,
 the Lorentz model) and honestly scoped out — Rung 1 showed geometric embeddings
-do not carry SAT hardness. But the operator meant something different and much
+do not carry SAT hardness. But the intended sense was something different and much
 more load-bearing: **hyperbolic PROGRAMMING** in the Gårding–Güler–Renegar–Brändén
 sense — convex optimization over the *hyperbolicity cone* of a hyperbolic
 polynomial, the largest structured generalization of conic optimization, with

docs/ladder/HYPERCOMPLEX_DESIGNS_REVIEW.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Review — the hypercomplex computer designs & channels
 
-A pass over the operator's computer/architecture designs from the pasted
+A pass over the contributed computer/architecture designs from the source
 conversations (the Lean structures, the sedenion clock, the VDIS channels),
 in the same discipline as `CONTRACTS.md`: what each design *is*, what is real,
 what is a `sorry`/`abbrev` triviality, and its honest computational scope. Two
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ matrix** (still the standing "next build").
 `L63_HypercomplexTime` wants "zero-divisor cost is not polynomial" to be a
 hardness theorem. The rigorous, executable form of "zero-divisor cost" is the
 **Nullstellensatz degree = rank-deficiency of `M_d`** (`RUNG2_ALGEBRAIC_NOTE.md`)
-— the operator's own instinct, made computable. What today's double-check
+— the guiding instinct, made computable. What today's double-check
 establishes is precisely the honest boundary the two `sorry`s hide:
 
 - the zero-divisor/NS obstruction is **real and intrinsic**, but it is a carrier

docs/ladder/LAMBDA_SAT_NOTE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Clashing SAT and Lambda — what survived, what fossilized
 
-The operator's Λᴿ ("lambda with remainder") vision — a hypercomplex, moving-frame
+The Λᴿ ("lambda with remainder") vision — a hypercomplex, moving-frame
 universal lambda language, and a Λᴿ-SAT that treats clauses as manifold patches
 and UNSAT as non-vanishing holonomy — is beautiful and large. The instruction was
 the Charter itself: *clash SAT and Lambda, see what survives and grows.* So the
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ fusion, the frame trilogy, and the Lean obligation meet on one object.
 
 ## The Y-combinator spine — ε > 0 made literal
 
-The operator's fuller vision was a *Y combinator* — the fixpoint, self-reference —
+The fuller vision was a *Y combinator* — the fixpoint, self-reference —
 "in a Calabi-Yau Möbius torus." The honest core of that: **full Y is undecidable**
 (a certificate cannot exist for the general fixpoint — the halting boundary), so
 "maybe that's too much" is *precisely* true. But its decidable spine is buildable,
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ rather than mere provenance. Verified (5 tests):
 - `λs. a ∨ s` → the boundary matters (two fixpoints) → **ε > 0**.
 - `λs. ¬s` — the **Möbius fixpoint**: traverse once, return flipped; its remainder
   is **eternally nonzero at every depth**. Self-negation is the term that never
-  orients, ε never reaching 0 — the operator's non-orientable torus, exact.
+  orients, ε never reaching 0 — the non-orientable torus, exact.
 
 So the vision's spine (Y, Möbius, the living remainder) is real and tested; the
 Calabi-Yau / 360-orthogonal / curvature envelope stays the lens — the *geometry of

docs/ladder/METAL_ROADMAP.md

@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ array library changes nothing. The GPU win requires *eliminating the loop first*
 
 The complementary question — *where do the bit-matrices live and how do they
 reach the GPU at scale* — is a **data-movement / memory-tier** problem, distinct
-from compute. The operator's own **NNN Hyperbolic Semantic Memory Fabric**
+from compute. The **NNN Hyperbolic Semantic Memory Fabric**
 (© Jesús Vilela Jato, all rights reserved — *referenced, not included*) is a
 directly relevant design here: a tiered, geometry-addressed substrate
 (RAM/tmpfs → NVMe-ZNS → GPU KV-cache → CXL) behind one Geometric Memory Protocol,

docs/ladder/OBSERVER_NOTE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # The synthetic observer A†, distilled onto tested code
 
-*The operator's ideal synthetic observer
+*An ideal synthetic observer
 `A† = (Θ, Γ, ∇⁻¹, ∂∞, R, C, E, J)` — "a boundary-conditioned geometric immune
 system for thought." The exquisite distillation is not another essay: it is the
 recognition that **most of A†'s organs are already this repo's verification
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ imaginer+skeptic, made into a valuation rule.
 - **The honest limit**: this is the observer's *logical* immune system over the
   SAT-frame task class — it does **not** claim Θ's full axis set (relevance,
   beauty, ethical-load), world-contact ν, or the hyperbolic boundary ∂∞ beyond
-  the Charter. Per §15 of the operator's derivation, there is **no universal
+  the Charter. By the derivation's own §15, there is **no universal
   replacement** — only bounded observer-bisimulation over a task class `K`. Here
   `K` = "certify a SAT verdict soundly," and over that `K` the organs are real.
 - **Lens / open**: the `∇⁻¹` gauge-correction one-form, the hypercomplex `Cl(p,q)`