dennisthiessenandClaude Opus 5
83c0555e52
The v3 cutover run scored 2/4 corrections warned against v2's 3/4, which reads like a regression and is not one. Only 4 of the 11 detected corrections fall in the holdout, so recall is one event from a different headline -- and the event that flips is decided by threshold placement, not by what the score saw. "v3 without the credit sensor" catches 2025-02-21 at a *higher* threshold (35.5) than shipped v3 misses it at (32.3), because the alarm rule needs a rising edge and a lower threshold can fire outside the horizon then never reset below. Two caveats are now computed and surfaced rather than left for the reader to infer: - Holdout event count against MIN_EVENTS_FOR_CONFIDENCE. The summary sentence states how many of the detected corrections actually fall in the test period. - Warning-sensor coverage across the split. The score renormalises over what is available, so a training window predating a sensor's history freezes the threshold on a different construct than the holdout is measured against. At the cutover that is 39% of training sessions with all three sensors versus 100% of the test period, credit history beginning 2023-07-25. Restricting the threshold to sensor-matched training sessions was tested and rejected: those sessions are a calm recent stretch, so the threshold falls from 32.3 to 22.5 and false alarms rise from 3.3 to 8.6/yr. It swaps a coverage bias for a regime-selection bias. The report states its limits instead. _warning_series now returns per-session sensor counts alongside the scores. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>