The §5 ¶3 BP+penalty value (0.530, +18.1 pp margin) was single-seed s42.
Ran s123 and s456 to multi-seed it, matching the BP-no-pen 3-seed control.

3-seed BP+pen 30ep results (lam=0.01, AdamW lr=1e-3 wd=0.01, cosine, batch 128):
  s42:  0.5303, +18.13 pp vs frozen
  s123: 0.5262, +17.72 pp
  s456: 0.5397, +19.07 pp
  3-seed mean: 0.5321 ± 0.0057, +18.31 pp

Updates:
- §5 ¶3: BP+pen "0.530 (single seed)" → "0.532 ± 0.006" (3-seed)
- §5 ¶3: BP penalty cost -5.5 pp → -5.3 pp
- §5 ¶3: BP+pen margin +18.1 → +18.3 pp
- §5 ¶3: BP-to-DFA gap 17.0 → 17.2 pp
- §4 ¶4: BP+pen +18.1 → +18.3 pp comparison
- Figure 3 panel C bar values: BP with_pen 0.530 → 0.532
- Figure 3 panel C title: BP-pen-cost -5.5pp → -5.3pp

The +18.3 pp 3-seed mean is essentially the same as the s42 single-seed
+18.13 pp, so the headline conclusion (BP+pen far above frozen baseline,
huge gap vs DFA+pen) is unchanged. This commit removes the last
single-seed value labeled as a key control.

New auditable file: results/bp_with_penalty_3seed_summary.json

Page layout preserved: 9 pages main, refs p10, 0 overfull boxes.

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

The §5 ¶3 BP-no-penalty value of 0.609 ± 0.004 and DFA-no-penalty value
of 0.308 ± 0.014 turned out to be unsourced — they were carried over
from a hardcoded comment in experiments/bp_with_penalty_control.py
("BP-trainable (3-seed mean): 0.609") that nobody had actually measured
with a matched 30-epoch run.

Ran the missing matched controls under the same recipe as BP+pen
(lam=0, 30 epochs, AdamW 1e-3, wd 0.01, cosine schedule, batch 128,
3 seeds 42/123/456):

  BP no-pen 30ep: per-seed 0.5851, 0.5845, 0.5863  →  0.585 ± 0.001
                  (paper said 0.609 ± 0.004, off by 0.024)
  DFA no-pen 30ep: per-seed 0.3070, 0.2985, 0.2966 →  0.301 ± 0.005
                  (paper said 0.308 ± 0.014)

Also re-grounded DFA+penalty 30ep using the dfa_pen_short 3-seed run
(0.3593, 0.3610, 0.3604 → 0.360 ± 0.001), which is what the deep-cosine
+0.155 figure was computed on. The paper had 0.363 ± 0.001 — that came
from the 100-epoch run, not the 30-epoch run, so it was an apples-to-
oranges comparison with BP+pen 30-ep.

Paper changes (§5 ¶3):
  BP penalty cost:  -8 pp  →  -5.5 pp
  DFA pen rescue:   +5.5 → +5.9 pp
  DFA+pen margin vs frozen: +1.4 → +1.1 pp
  BP-to-DFA gap:     17 → 17.0 pp (unchanged)
  BP-to-SB gap:      7.7 → 7.7 pp (unchanged)
  BP-to-DFA gap is still the lower-bound credit-quality cost claim;
  17 pp gap is unchanged in magnitude.

Also updated:
- §5 ¶1 prose: 0.363 → 0.360, 0.308 → 0.301
- §4 ¶4 prose: DFA+pen 0.363 → 0.360
- Appendix J Table 9 caption: 0.363 → 0.360, +9.0 → +9.3 pp gap to SB
- Appendix L paragraph: +5.5 → +5.9 pp DFA penalty rescue
- Figure 3 panel C bar values + title pen-cost annotation
- New results/matched_30ep_control_summary.json as auditable record

Page layout preserved: 9 main pages + refs p10, 18 total, 0 overfull.

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

Per user feedback:
- fig4_penalty_rescue.pdf (Figure 3 in paper): was figsize=(13, 3.5), aspect 3.7:1,
  which rendered as a thin strip with squeezed subplot content. Increased height
  to figsize=(13, 6.0), aspect 2.2:1. Much taller panels that actually show axis
  labels and legends readably.
- fig5_cross_arch_summary.pdf (Figure 4 in paper): the 'Key finding' italic text
  annotation at y=-1.0 in axes transform was overlapping with the multiline
  architecture y-tick labels at the bottom of the second subplot. Moved to
  y=-1.55 and increased figsize height from 3.5 to 4.2 so the lower annotation
  still fits in bbox_inches='tight' crop.
- Also bumped includegraphics width from 0.92\linewidth to \linewidth for both
  figures so they use the full text width.

Main content still exactly 9 pages within E&D budget.

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

Tables filled with real values:
  Table 1: 5-method audit (3-seed mean ± std for acc, headline Γ, verdict)
  Table 2: 4-condition mode 2 validation (cos and ρ values from existing
           checkpoint measurements)
  Table 3: protocol thresholds (50×, 1e-7, 0.30, 2pp)

Figures generated from existing data:
  fig2_decision_utility.pdf: 5×7 verdict heatmap from
    results/protocol_audit/ablation_decision_utility.json
  fig4_penalty_rescue.pdf: 3-panel — trajectory + cos/ρ bars + 2×2 acc
    from snapshot_evolution_v2 + dfa_residual_penalty + bp_with_penalty
  fig5_cross_arch_summary.pdf: 5×4 BP/DFA verdict matrix across
    architectures

Compiles to 8 pages with all tables/figures rendered. §1-§7 main body
still has only paragraph topic sentences (TODO: per-section prose
filling via codex). Figure numbering is wrong (codex put figures in
section order not numerical order — need fixing).