docs: require comparative random-beta baseline

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/TWO_STATE_BIAS_PROGRAM.md b/TWO_STATE_BIAS_PROGRAM.md
index c8ed934..d84ca36 100644
--- a/TWO_STATE_BIAS_PROGRAM.md
+++ b/TWO_STATE_BIAS_PROGRAM.md
@@ -337,10 +337,15 @@ Stop this paper direction if:
   `79.15/62.75/67.10/77.75%`; innovation is `+15.00/+10.65` points over
   raw/constant and is `1.40` points below clean with essentially zero measured
   wall overhead. This is not a confirmation. Random-sign beta is not yet a
-  functioning comparator in the pinned positive-EP configuration: both random
-  sign and fixed negative beta remain at `9.9%` even with zero injected bias,
-  so negative-beta stability must be solved independently before comparison;
-  see `results/ep_bias/s3_summary.json`.
+  functioning comparator in the small pinned positive-EP configuration: both
+  random sign and fixed negative beta remain at `9.9%` even with zero injected
+  bias; see `results/ep_bias/s3_summary.json`. This failure is protocol-specific,
+  not a property of negative EP. Under the authors' original comparative-study
+  Conv32 architecture, relaxation counts, layer-wise rates and schedule, a
+  one-epoch zero-bias smoke reaches `61.40/31.55/39.10%` for positive,
+  negative and random-sign beta. Thus the full paper-facing EP matrix must use
+  the comparative-study protocol and include random-sign beta as a functioning
+  same-cost baseline; see `results/ep_bias/s4_summary.json`.
 - Coupled-learning/DCHN adapter: not implemented under this bias model.
 - Current score for this new paper framing: 5/10. Passing the artificial Dual
   Prop confirmation and the single-seed Rain S3 screen do not repair the failed