The pre-v2.31 unsourced values BP=0.609 and DFA=0.308 (which v2.31 fixed
to 0.585 and 0.301 via matched 30-ep controls) were also hardcoded as
"compare to" comments in 5 helper scripts:

  experiments/bp_with_penalty_control.py
  experiments/dfa_residual_penalty_test.py
  experiments/resmlp_frozen_blocks_baseline.py
  protocol/examples/threshold_d_sensitivity.py
  protocol/examples/plot_penalty_rescue.py

These are non-paper-input scripts (their output goes to stdout, not to
the paper), so the stale values didn't cause numerical errors in the
paper itself. But the original v2.31 BP+pen=0.609 unsourced number bug
came from exactly this kind of hardcoded "for-comparison" comment that
was never measured. Updating them now to remove the same trap from
future runs.

Each script now references the matched 30-ep 3-seed values from
results/bp_no_penalty_30ep, results/dfa_no_penalty_30ep, results/
dfa_pen_short, and results/bp_with_penalty.

protocol/EVIDENCE_SUMMARY.md and PAPER_OUTLINE.md still have stale
numbers — these are project scratch documents and not user-facing.
Deferred to a separate sweep if needed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Trains end-to-end BP with the same lambda*||f_l(h_l)||^2 penalty used in
the DFA penalty rescue. Tests whether the penalty's depth utilization
loss in penalized DFA is intrinsic to DFA's random-feedback credit
quality (mode 2) or due to penalty-induced capacity regularization.

Decision rule:
  BP+pen margin > 25 pp -> mode 2 confirmed (penalty is not the cap)
  BP+pen margin < 5 pp  -> penalty itself caps depth (capacity loss)
  intermediate          -> both effects present