User flagged that the cos-vs-accuracy cross-method dissociation is the
paper's strongest new observation and the nudging-test functional
triangulation should be in §4 main text, not buried in Appendix L.
Also flagged that Appendix L's "three seeds each" claim was correct in
*labeling* but the cited values (-1.78e-3, -0.45e-3, -5e-5) were s42
single-seed.

Re-aggregating from existing per-seed JSONs (no new compute needed):

  results/round38_sbcb_penalty_30ep/results_cifar10.json (s42)
  results/round38_{sb,cb}_penalty_30ep_s{123,456}/results_cifar10.json
  results/round41_dfa_penalty_30ep{,_s{123,456}}/results_cifar10.json

3-seed deep-block nudging means (eta=0.01):
  SB+pen:  -1.93 ± 0.11 × 10^-3 (was -1.78 single)
  CB+pen:  -4.26 ± 0.24 × 10^-4 (was -0.45 single)
  DFA+pen: -4.98 ± 0.44 × 10^-5 (was -5 single)

Ratios (essentially unchanged):
  SB / CB:  4.5× (was ~4×)
  SB / DFA: 39×  (was ~35×)

Changes:
- §4 ¶4 NEW prose block: promotes the nudging test + training-loss
  decrease as two independent functional measurements that confirm the
  ordering SB ≫ CB ≈ DFA. Three functional metrics (accuracy, nudging,
  loss-trajectory) all agree; deep cosine is the only one that doesn't.
- §4 ¶4 setup compressed (drops some redundant per-method recital,
  references Appendix J for full numerics) to make room.
- Appendix L paragraph: nudging values updated to true 3-seed (with
  per-seed values listed), points at saved JSON.
- New auditable file: results/nudging_test_3seed_summary.json.

Page layout: main content still 9 pages exactly (§7 ends p9, refs p10).
Total now 19 pages (was 18) — one extra appendix page from per-seed
nudging values. 9-page main content budget preserved.

This responds to user message: "cos-vs-accuracy 跨方法 dissociation 是
本文最有分量的新观测... nudging 数字应该进 Section 4 而不是埋在附录"
and "nudging test 只有 single seed 42... 三 seed 跑一下几乎零成本"
(turned out to be zero compute — data was already in saved JSONs).

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