Their VGG10 = 62.7M (computed from Table 6) > our 42.75M: largest-today is theirs; their EP/BP wall-clock 6.7-12x vs our 3.2x recorded as solver differentiator

1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/docs/CLAIM_LARGEST_NOBP.md b/docs/CLAIM_LARGEST_NOBP.md
index 8bb69e5..0edbc3a 100644
--- a/docs/CLAIM_LARGEST_NOBP.md
+++ b/docs/CLAIM_LARGEST_NOBP.md
@@ -60,8 +60,10 @@ top-1 33.81 vs BP 32.35 (top-5 13.23 vs 12.20) — **a real 1.0-1.5pp gap remain
 EP's inventor**. Their construction IS the layered-energy bridge (their Eq. 10 == our cascade energy;
 free phase == forward pass; single-equilibrium simplification == our single-sided legality; their
 mod-PGD/asynchronous traversal ~= our fb solver). Vision classification only; hardware explicitly
-punted ("remains unclear whether F_PCN could be efficiently realized in hardware"). Parameter count
-not stated (VGG10-class, plausibly 20-130M) => **"largest NN today" is CONTESTED — do not use.**
+punted ("remains unclear whether F_PCN could be efficiently realized in hardware"). Parameter count (computed from their Table 6): conv ~9.2M + dense 25088x2048 ~51.4M + 2048x1000 ~2.0M
+= **~62.7M > our 42.75M** => **"largest NN today" is THEIRS — do not use.** Also measured: their
+EP/BP wall-clock = 12x centered / 6.7x random (VGG10 ImageNet: 18d/10d vs BP 36h, single A100) vs
+OUR 3.2x — the solver-efficiency differentiator, measured on both sides.
 RE-SCOPED claims that hold today: largest/first TRANSFORMER fully trained without BP; first
 AUTOREGRESSIVE LANGUAGE MODEL; the only zero-gap result (matched-tuning indistinguishability; their
 best retains 1.0-1.5pp). At 1B+ the unqualified largest-NN claim reactivates regardless of their