docs: record oral B recovery boundary

1 files changed, 21 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/PAPER_PLAN.md b/PAPER_PLAN.md
index 04f1d2f..290ac30 100644
--- a/PAPER_PLAN.md
+++ b/PAPER_PLAN.md
@@ -72,17 +72,16 @@ not imply that no-traffic scaling establishes the necessity of residualization.
    preservation, alignment, query/MAC/memory cost, and direct-versus-amortized
    causal feedback.
 4. **Scientific negatives.** Broad top-down traffic, useful-depth learned
-   vectorization, the Harnett desired-velocity signature, and full standard
-   ResNet stability fail their frozen gates, defining the method's actual
-   boundary.
+   vectorization, the Harnett desired-velocity/full population signature, and
+   the original learned-vectorizer ResNet branch fail their frozen gates,
+   defining the method's actual boundary.
 5. **Standard scale.** D3 passes all frozen checks at `91.18%` validation on
-   ResNet-20 versus BP's `91.62%`, but it is one seed.  Do not promote this to
-   a robustness or depth-scaling claim until the already frozen paired
-   five-seed D4 confirmation and a separate depth panel pass.
-   The separate dynamic-depth recovery in `ORAL_A_RECOVERY.md` is the only
-   permitted depth panel: after oral-B passes, it reuses D4's ResNet-20 cells
-   and adds BP/DFA/clean-KP/dynamic ResNet-32/56 comparisons under a frozen
-   positive-depth-benefit and cost gate.
+   ResNet-20 versus BP's `91.62%`; the independent paired D4 panel then reaches
+   `91.584%` mean test accuracy versus clean KP's `91.388%`. This supports
+   ResNet-20 robustness, not a positive depth-scaling claim. The separately
+   frozen dynamic-depth panel in `ORAL_A_RECOVERY.md` was the only permitted
+   route to the latter, but its oral-B R2 prerequisite fails, so no new
+   ResNet-32/56 endpoint is opened.
 
 ## Figure order in the manuscript
 
@@ -155,8 +154,10 @@ numbering.
   lesion; desired velocity is unsupported.
 - Keep the original failed screen intact. The separately frozen recovery
   factorizes learned causal role from within-episode performance innovation;
-  report it only if both its D4-gated development screen and untouched
-  6-task-by-5-model confirmation pass.
+  its D4-gated development screen passes, but the untouched 6-task-by-5-model
+  confirmation fails the joint population-vectorization/longitudinal gate.
+  Report the learning, lesion, sign-inversion, and velocity positives as a
+  bounded diagnostic, not as a passed oral-B claim.
 - Even a complete recovery pass supports innovation-guided plasticity, not
   online neural control: the recovery fixes `kappa=0` by construction.
 
@@ -177,7 +178,7 @@ numbering.
 | “Depth does not help this task.” | Claim says preservation; C2 reports the learned-vectorizer failure; Oral-A A3 is retained as a failed standard-scale test | Fatal to a broad scaling claim; the paper must remain mechanism-focused |
 | “Local methods hide enormous extra work.” | Logical queries, MACs, peak memory, wall time, C3 confirmation, EP/native protocols | Hardware implementations are not all equally optimized |
 | “Weak baselines define the win.” | BP/FA/DFA/direct NP/FF/PEPITA/EP plus native BurstCCN and Dual Prop | Native reproductions are one seed and method-native, not equal compute |
-| “Harnett already proves the biological story.” | Original oral-B negative result plus the separately frozen role/velocity recovery and untouched 30-record confirmation | No biological claim changes unless the recovery passes; `kappa=0` cannot support desired velocity |
+| “Harnett already proves the biological story.” | Original oral-B negative result plus the separately frozen role/velocity recovery and untouched 30-record confirmation | Recovery fixes learning and sign but fails the joint outcome/longitudinal gate; `kappa=0` cannot support desired velocity |
 | “The fast controller is just an unreported contrastive phase.” | Paired neutral observation count and elementwise/wall cost are explicit; no task-nudged state, loss query, or reverse pass is used | The instruction-off microphase is a real assumption and weakens the single-phase biological claim |
 | “The gates were selected after results.” | Git-frozen protocols, untouched confirmation seeds, failed branches retained | Early inherited pilots predate the strict boundary and must remain labeled |
 
@@ -276,6 +277,10 @@ ResNet-20 with an inherited zero-query reciprocal credit path.
 The paper must still attribute reciprocal KP plasticity to prior work, count
 the paired neutral microphase and elementwise work, and retain the failed
 arbitrary-top-down, desired-velocity, online-control, and earlier unstable
-branches.  D4 alone cannot support positive added-depth utility.  The next
-paper-changing gate is oral-B R1/R2; only its separately frozen confirmation
-can raise 7 to 8 and unlock the standard ResNet-20/32/56 oral-A panel.
+branches.  D4 alone cannot support positive added-depth utility. Oral-B R1
+selects `eta=0.1` with 98.05% worst-task development success, but the untouched
+R2 confirmation fails the broader outcome-vectorization and longitudinal
+signature checks despite 99.53% mean success and 30/30 positive sign
+inversions. The score therefore remains 7 and the frozen
+ResNet-20/32/56 oral-A panel stays closed. Do not repair thresholds or route
+around the failed prerequisite.