Luna deep analysis — slate 20260904

Coverage receipt: COMPLETE · 9/8 sections; 16/16 games; 4/4 causes; 5/6 sources

1. Evidence receipt and gaps

Source manifest

Six of seven declared artifacts were loaded:

The missing integrity-revision artifact is a receipt gap, but the supplied data does not attribute any game-level prediction error to an artifact defect. Every game’s structural audit passed.

Slate coverage

All 16 listed games were reviewed:

ARI@HOU, ATL@PHI, BOS@BAL, CHC@MIA, DET@CLE Game 1, DET@CLE Game 2, LAA@PIT, MIL@CIN, MIN@CHW, NYY@SD, OAK@SEA, SF@NYM, STL@COL, TB@TEX, TOR@KC, WAS@LAD.

Coverage claims:

• Expected games: 16.
• Games reviewed: 16.
• Structural audits: 16/16.
• Canonical artifacts loaded: 16.
• Continuous-learning games: 16.
• Forensic deep-audit games: 16.
• Starter comparisons: 15/16.
• Structural audit summary: 0 critical, 0 error, 117 info, 0 warning.

The second DET@CLE entry has no starter_lines, explaining the 15/16 starter-comparison coverage. Two entries share the same matchup label, but the second has a distinct game ID (20260904_DET@CLE_2), so this is an identifiable doubleheader rather than an unexplained duplicate.

Other evidence gaps

• Player-level actuals were unavailable for BOS@BAL, MIN@CHW, NYY@SD, OAK@SEA, TB@TEX, and TOR@KC. The diagnosis explicitly says “no per-player actuals for this game yet.”
• No source-labelled moneyline was available for any game; market agreement was therefore not testable.
• Six games do not include a detailed score_evolution array in the supplied diagnosis: ARI@HOU, ATL@PHI, CHC@MIA, DET@CLE Game 1, DET@CLE Game 2, LAA@PIT, MIL@CIN, SF@NYM, STL@COL, and WAS@LAD. Their final scores and stage-level aggregate metrics are available, but not their individual score paths.
• The probability lineage contains two critical unexplained publication deltas: ARI@HOU and SF@NYM.
• The causal register lists DET@CLE twice in several affected-game arrays. This appears to reflect the doubleheader or repeated aggregation, but the register does not distinguish the game IDs.

2. Executive diagnosis

Overall result

• Winner accuracy: 10/16, 62.5%.
• Walk-forward baseline accuracy: 55.9%.
• Holdout/model validation winner accuracy: 58.4%.
• Slate winner result: better than the supplied baseline, but not strong enough to establish a durable improvement by itself.
• Losses: BOS@BAL, MIN@CHW, NYY@SD, OAK@SEA, TB@TEX, TOR@KC.
• Mean team-run absolute error on losses: 6.0.
• Mean total-run bias on losses: +2.0, meaning the model generally overprojected total scoring across the losses.
• Weighted absolute calibration error: 0.1316.
• High-conviction misses: 3/9, a 33.3% miss rate.
• Exact score accuracy is not reported as a percentage. Four correct-winner games were explicitly marked right_winner_wrong_score: ARI@HOU, DET@CLE Game 1, LAA@PIT, and SF@NYM.

A correct winner does not imply a good full prediction. For example, LAA@PIT selected the correct side but missed the total by 11 runs; ARI@HOU selected HOU but projected 6–4 instead of 3–1.

Separate diagnoses

Winner accuracy

The directional model was moderately successful at 62.5%, with the stronger directional evidence generally working:

• CHC@MIA: composite home edge −1.2062, CHC won.
• LAA@PIT: composite home edge +1.0202, PIT won.
• MIL@CIN: composite home edge −1.9382, MIL won.
• WAS@LAD: composite home edge +0.4900, LAD won.

The major directional failures were less about tiny random margins in some cases and more about low-scoring or starter-driven reversals:

• NYY@SD: a strong 0.29 away confidence edge lost.
• TOR@KC: a moderate 0.11 home edge lost by seven runs.
• OAK@SEA: a lean 0.10 home edge lost after Logan Gilbert allowed seven earned runs.
• MIN@CHW: near-even composite evidence, but the model still selected MIN.

Calibration quality

Calibration was weak despite acceptable winner accuracy:

• Weighted absolute calibration error: 0.1316.
• The 0.50–0.55 bucket had average confidence 0.5396 and observed hit rate 0.5714.
• The 0.55–0.60 bucket had average confidence 0.5626 and observed hit rate 0.6667.
• The 0.60–0.65 bucket contained one game at 0.6434 that lost.
• The 0.65–0.70 bucket contained one game at 0.662 that hit.
• The 0.70–0.80 bucket contained one game at 0.7245 that hit.

The bucket labels are internally consistent with the stated definition—published confidence minus observed hit rate—but the one-game high buckets are not statistically reliable. The high-raw cluster was 3/3 on this slate, while its empirical historical hit rates were only approximately 0.548–0.550. That is evidence against trusting raw high confidence, not evidence that the current cluster is correctly calibrated.

Score accuracy

The run model is the clearest model limitation:

• Historical holdout R²:
• Away runs: 0.026352.
• Home runs: 0.018723.
• Total runs: 0.026024.
• Walk-forward Brier: 0.244044.
• Historical ML stage total-run MAE: 4.2626.
• Published final total-run MAE: 4.1875.
• Published final team-run MAE: 2.4062.
• Margin MAE: 2.0625.
• Margin distribution: 13/16 predicted margins were ≤2, while 3 actual margins were ≥4.
• Mean signed predicted-margin error was +0.562 in the spread analysis, while the cross-slate margin-bias series is improving toward zero.

A small positive R² means the model explains slightly more than a trivial average target. It does not make exact scores reliable. The slate had both under-dispersed and over-dispersed outcomes: BOS@BAL, MIN@CHW, and ARI@HOU were large total overprojections, while SF@NYM and TB@TEX were material underprojections.

Starter accuracy

Starter projections were a material contributor:

• Three losses were labelled primarily starter_projection: MIN@CHW, OAK@SEA, TOR@KC.
• Several correct-winner games also had very large starter ER errors, including ARI@HOU, LAA@PIT, and MIL@CIN.
• The lever-tension evidence says pitcher-weight changes helped 10 games and hurt 3, but this is an observational slate count, not proof that reweighting will improve future performance.
• Starter identity was false in both DET@CLE Game 1 comparisons, so those comparisons should not be used as clean evidence for starter-model tuning.

Artifact integrity

Artifact integrity was not the cause of the six misses:

• Every game had a structural audit status of PASS.
• There were no critical, error, or warning findings in the per-game audits.
• Forecast-file integrity was reported clean in every game.
• However, the complete probability contract is not clean: ARI@HOU and SF@NYM have unexplained calibrated-to-published deltas of at least two percentage points. This is a critical evidence/contract failure, not merely a model-quality issue.
• The missing integrity-revision artifact is an additional receipt gap.

Causal issue register reconciliation

Critical: unexplained_probability_publication_delta

• Severity: Critical.
• Evidence: two games had unexplained calibrated-to-published deltas ≥2 percentage points.
• Affected games: ARI@HOU and SF@NYM.
• Action: block promotion until the missing probability transformation is recorded and reconciled.
• Guardrail: do not assume the probability governor was bypassed before tracing the pick-side math.

The supplied lineage does show governor values and score-coherence values, but it does not explain the final publication delta in those two games. This is enough to block promotion, not enough to conclude a governor bypass.

High: weak_run_model_signal

• Severity: High.
• Evidence: home/away/total R² of 0.0187/0.0264/0.0260.
• Affected games: all 16, with DET@CLE listed twice by the register.
• Action: treat exact scores as low-confidence; investigate stronger features or a better target before tuning score tails.
• Guardrail: small positive R² does not establish reliable exact-score forecasts.

This is a material model risk, not a contract failure. The proposed action is isolated feature/target training and backtesting, not blind nightly tuning.

Info: complete_slate_audit_coverage

• Severity: Info.
• Evidence: 16/16 games structurally audited.
• Action: retain a per-game audit receipt.
• Guardrail: complete audit coverage does not cancel findings within audited games.

Info: simulation_inert_on_slate

• Severity: Info on this slate; escalated across slates.
• Evidence: zero flip candidates and zero published flips on 16 games.
• Action: measure simulation contribution across rolling slates and separate score realization from winner flipping.
• Guardrail: zero winner flips is not automatically a defect and does not prove that simulation did no score reconciliation.

Because this finding has persisted for eight consecutive slates, it is now an established operational pattern requiring code/diagnostic action.

3. Every game

Notation: starter lines are projected ER/outs versus actual ER/outs. “Total error” is the absolute total-run error, equivalent to the absolute value of the listed total bias.

ARI@HOU — correct winner, wrong score

• Prediction: HOU 6, ARI 4; HOU winner.
• Actual: HOU 3, ARI 1; HOU winner.
• Published HOU probability: 0.5825; home-minus-away edge +0.165.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.174304.
• Team-run error: 6; total error/bias: 6 over.
• Starters:
• Merrill Kelly: 3 ER/15 outs projected; 3 ER/18 actual.
• Cristian Javier: 4 ER/13 projected; 1 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season −0.029, recent +0.444, pitcher +0.038, composite +0.539 home.
• Controls: raw 0.6153 → governed 0.6219; no recency guardrail; later published 0.5825. Score-volatility action: no change. Savant adjustment applied.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final published score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info; artifact clean.
• Causes: no directional miss; primary/secondary causes are not assigned. The score miss was largely the HOU starter allowing three fewer ER than projected and an overestimated total environment.
• Audit caveat: the calibrated-to-published probability delta is unexplained and critical for lineage, even though the winner was correct.

ATL@PHI — correct winner and strong score call

• Prediction: ATL 4, PHI 3; ATL winner.
• Actual: ATL 5, PHI 2; ATL winner.
• Published ATL probability: 0.5599; home-minus-away edge −0.1199.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.193658.
• Team-run error: 2; total error: 0.
• Starters:
• Chris Sale: 2 ER/19 projected; 2 ER/18 actual.
• Cristopher Sánchez: 3 ER/19 projected; 3 ER/18 actual.
• Edges: season −0.446, recent −0.318, pitcher −0.120, composite −0.768 home.
• Controls: raw 0.6000 → governed 0.5815; recency guardrail applied; final published probability 0.5599. No volatility change; Savant adjustment applied.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 8 info.
• Causes: none material. This was a strong correct call; starter and total-run projections were accurate.

BOS@BAL — directional miss and major score overprojection

• Prediction: BAL 6, BOS 4; BAL winner.
• Actual: BOS 1, BAL 0; BOS winner.
• Published BAL probability: 0.5300; home-minus-away edge +0.060.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.280900.
• Team-run error: 9; total error: 9 over.
• Starters:
• Ranger Suárez: 3 ER/15 projected; 0 ER/21 actual.
• Shane Baz: 4 ER/17 projected; 1 ER/19 actual.
• Edges: season −0.256, recent +0.642, pitcher +0.009, composite +0.400 home.
• Controls: raw/governor input 0.5300; calibrated/governed 0.6241; recency guardrail applied; published probability 0.5300. Volatility action: supported blowout-margin expansion. Savant adjustment applied.
• Score path: historical 4.63–3.89 → variance 5–4 → enhanced 4–6 → Savant 4–6 → final 4–6. The winner changed from the historical away lean to the home side at enhanced prediction.
• Player adjustments: 21 material changes. Largest listed effects included Encarnacion-Strand, Rutschman, Roman Anthony, Alonso, Eli White, Abreu, Story, and Taveras.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info. Player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: run_environment_over.
• Secondary cause: none formally assigned.
• Diagnosis: both starters materially outperformed projections, producing a nine-run overprojection. The recent/home evidence pulled the model toward BAL, but the actual game was a low-scoring BOS shutout.

CHC@MIA — strong correct call

• Prediction: CHC 6, MIA 3; CHC winner.
• Actual: CHC 6, MIA 1; CHC winner.
• Published CHC probability: 0.7245; home-minus-away edge −0.449.
• Conviction: strong.
• Brier: 0.075890.
• Team-run error: 2; total error: 2 over.
• Starters:
• Shota Imanaga: 0 ER/16 projected; 1 ER/18 actual.
• Janson Junk: 4 ER/15 projected; 1 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season −0.747, recent −0.408, pitcher −0.070, composite −1.206 home.
• Controls: raw 0.7034 → governed 0.7104; no recency guardrail; score-coherence publication 0.7245. Volatility actions: high-total-environment lift and supported blowout expansion.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: none material. This was a strong correct call, though the high-confidence probability remains historically aggressive given the cluster’s empirical hit rate near 0.55.

DET@CLE Game 1 — correct winner, wrong score

• Prediction: CLE 4, DET 3; CLE winner.
• Actual: CLE 7, DET 6; CLE winner.
• Published CLE probability: 0.5251; home-minus-away edge +0.0502.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.225537.
• Team-run error: 6; total error: 6 under.
• Starters:
• Keider Montero: 2 ER/18 projected; 1 ER/17 actual; identity mismatch.
• Logan Allen: 0 ER/9 projected; 3 ER/18 actual; identity mismatch.
• Edges: season +0.034, recent +0.830, pitcher +0.011, composite +0.431 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5220 → governed 0.5083; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5251. No volatility change.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: no formal primary/secondary cause. The correct side was retained, but CLE’s starter allowed three more ER than projected and both offenses produced more than forecast.
• Data caveat: starter identity mismatch reduces the evidentiary value of this starter comparison.

DET@CLE Game 2 — correct winner and exact score

• Prediction: CLE 4, DET 3; CLE winner.
• Actual: CLE 4, DET 3; CLE winner.
• Published CLE probability: 0.5544; home-minus-away edge +0.1088.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.198558.
• Team-run error: 0; total error: 0.
• Starter lines: not supplied.
• Edges: season +0.034, recent +0.830, pitcher +0.059, composite +0.535 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5644 → governed 0.5662; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5544. No volatility change.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: none. Exact score and winner were correct.
• Coverage caveat: this is the one game without a starter comparison.

LAA@PIT — correct winner, wrong score

• Prediction: PIT 7, LAA 5; PIT winner.
• Actual: PIT 1, LAA 0; PIT winner.
• Published PIT probability: 0.6620; home-minus-away edge +0.3241.
• Conviction: strong.
• Brier: 0.114226.
• Team-run error: 11; total error: 11 over.
• Starters:
• Ryan Johnson: 7 ER/15 projected; 1 ER/18 actual.
• Jared Jones: 5 ER/15 projected; 0 ER/18 actual.
• Edges: season +0.840, recent +0.648, pitcher +0.017, composite +1.020 home.
• Controls: raw 0.6441 → governed 0.6591; no recency guardrail; published 0.6620. No volatility change despite a large Savant swing flag.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 8 info.
• Causes: no directional cause; the score failure was a joint starter overprojection, especially Ryan Johnson by six ER and Jared Jones by five ER.
• Interpretation: a good winner forecast can still be a poor score forecast. This is the clearest example.

MIL@CIN — correct winner and acceptable margin

• Prediction: MIL 8, CIN 5; MIL winner.
• Actual: MIL 10, CIN 7; MIL winner.
• Published MIL probability: 0.5400; home-minus-away edge −0.080.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.211600.
• Team-run error: 4; total error: 4 under.
• Starters:
• Shane Drohan: 1 ER/16 projected; 6 ER/12 actual.
• Rhett Lowder: 5 ER/15 projected; 6 ER/12 actual.
• Edges: season −1.580, recent −0.654, pitcher −0.166, composite −1.938 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5400 → governed 0.6526; recency guardrail applied; final probability was pulled back to 0.5400 after score coherence/guardrail processing. Supported blowout expansion.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: none directional. The MIL side was correctly identified despite a five-ER starter underprediction for Drohan.

MIN@CHW — directional miss

• Prediction: MIN 6, CHW 5; MIN winner.
• Actual: MIN 1, CHW 4; CHW winner.
• Published MIN probability: 0.5381; home-minus-away edge −0.0762.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.289555.
• Team-run error: 6; total error: 6 over.
• Starters:
• Zebby Matthews: 4 ER/18 projected; 4 ER/15 actual.
• Erick Fedde: 5 ER/14 projected; 0 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season +0.359, recent −0.046, pitcher −0.032, composite −0.065 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5317 → governed 0.5211; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5381. No volatility change.
• Score path: historical 4.81–4.01 → variance 5–4 → enhanced 6–5 → Savant 6–5 → final 6–5. The model increased MIN’s scoring after the enhanced stage.
• Player adjustments: 24 material changes, including Royce Lewis, Benintendi, Sam Antonacci, Keaschall, Murakami, Montgomery, Vargas, and Jeffers.
• Audit: PASS; player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: starter_projection, chiefly Fedde allowing five fewer ER than projected.
• Secondary cause: run_environment_over.
• Earliest wrong-direction evidence: the weak composite edge was already near neutral, but the enhanced stage moved the score to MIN 6–5; the Savant stage retained that direction rather than correcting it.

NYY@SD — high-conviction directional miss

• Prediction: NYY 6, SD 3; NYY winner.
• Actual: NYY 2, SD 3; SD winner.
• Published NYY probability: 0.6434; home-minus-away edge −0.2869.
• Conviction: strong.
• Brier: 0.414021, worst on the slate.
• Team-run error: 4; total error: 4 over.
• Starters:
• Max Fried: 0 ER/17 projected; 1 ER/17 actual.
• Walker Buehler: 4 ER/16 projected; 1 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season −0.727, recent −0.544, pitcher −0.007, composite −1.091 home.
• Controls: raw 0.6290 → governed 0.6219; no recency guardrail; published probability 0.6434. No volatility change despite a large Savant swing flag.
• Score path: historical 4.46–2.99 → variance 4–3 → enhanced 5–3 → Savant 6–3 → final 6–3. The Savant stage added one NYY run and preserved a strong away margin.
• Player adjustments: 22 material changes, including McMahon, Bellinger, France, Spencer Jones, Wells, Jazz Chisholm Jr., Tatis Jr., and Merrill.
• Audit: PASS; player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: wrong_conviction_side.
• Secondary cause: lean_side_miss in the register-style characterization, although the game was actually classified strong.
• Additional factor: Buehler allowed three fewer ER than projected; the run environment was four runs lower than forecast.
• Earliest wrong-direction evidence: the historical model already favored NYY, and enhanced/Savant stages increased the away score. No later stage recovered toward SD. A 0.29 edge is strong relative to this slate, but it was not supported by the outcome.

OAK@SEA — lean directional miss

• Prediction: SEA 6, OAK 5; SEA winner.
• Actual: OAK 7, SEA 6; OAK winner.
• Published SEA probability: 0.5485; home-minus-away edge +0.097.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.300850.
• Team-run error: 2; total error: 2 under.
• Starters:
• Kade Morris: 5 ER/9 projected; 5 ER/8 actual.
• Logan Gilbert: 1 ER/17 projected; 7 ER/14 actual.
• Edges: season +0.625, recent +0.158, pitcher +0.034, composite +0.639 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5600 → governed 0.5499; recency guardrail applied; published probability 0.5485. No volatility change.
• Score path: historical 3.16–6.15 → variance 3–6 → enhanced 5–6 → Savant 5–6 → final 5–6. The model never changed away from SEA.
• Player adjustments: 25 material changes, including Heim, Morris, Canzone, Alvarado, Julio Rodríguez, Muncy, Cortes, and McNeil.
• Audit: PASS; player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: starter_projection.
• Secondary cause: none.
• The decisive miss was Gilbert allowing six more ER than projected. This is a starter-tail failure more than a broad team-run failure.

SF@NYM — correct winner, wrong score

• Prediction: NYM 5, SF 4; NYM winner.
• Actual: NYM 10, SF 6; NYM winner.
• Published NYM probability: 0.5468; home-minus-away edge +0.0937.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.205362.
• Team-run error: 7; total error: 7 under.
• Starters:
• Matt Wilkinson: 3 ER/12 projected; 4 ER/9 actual.
• Nolan McLean: 2 ER/18 projected; 2 ER/18 actual.
• Edges: season +0.016, recent −0.185, pitcher −0.075, composite −0.024 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5559 → governed 0.5258; no recency guardrail; final published probability 0.5468. No volatility change despite a large Savant swing flag.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 8 info.
• Causes: no directional miss. NYM offense was underprojected by five runs; Wilkinson was one ER worse than projected.
• Critical lineage issue: the published-minus-calibrated delta is unexplained.

STL@COL — correct winner and reasonable score

• Prediction: STL 6, COL 5; STL winner.
• Actual: STL 7, COL 6; STL winner.
• Published STL probability: 0.5485; home-minus-away edge −0.097.
• Conviction: lean.
• Brier: 0.203854.
• Team-run error: 2; total error: 2 under.
• Starters:
• Andre Pallante: 2 ER/18 projected; 1 ER/15 actual.
• Ryan Feltner: 6 ER/14 projected; 4 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season −0.715, recent −0.113, pitcher +0.034, composite −0.527 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5600 → governed 0.5499; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5485. No volatility change.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: none. The STL direction and close margin were sound.

TB@TEX — moderate directional miss

• Prediction: TEX 4, TB 3; TEX winner.
• Actual: TB 7, TEX 6; TB winner.
• Published TEX probability: 0.5599; home-minus-away edge +0.1199.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.313526.
• Team-run error: 6; total error: 6 under.
• Starters:
• Nick Martinez: 2 ER/18 projected; 3 ER/19 actual.
• Trevor Williams: 1 ER/14 projected; 0 ER/3 actual.
• Edges: season −0.497, recent 0.000, pitcher −0.041, composite −0.183 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5614 → governed 0.5815; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5599. No volatility change.
• Score path: historical 3.43–4.70 → variance 3–5 → enhanced 3–4 → Savant 3–4 → final 3–4. The model remained on TEX despite the negative composite home edge.
• Player adjustments: 23 material changes, including Hicks, Martinez, Mesa Jr., Simpson, Nimmo, Pederson, Walls, and Langford.
• Audit: PASS; player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: run_environment_under.
• Secondary cause: wrong_conviction_side.
• The published edge was moderate, not a near coin flip: +0.1199 is a meaningful but limited signal. It should not be treated as confidence-free ambiguity.

TOR@KC — moderate directional miss and major score miss

• Prediction: KC 7, TOR 5; KC winner.
• Actual: TOR 9, KC 2; TOR winner.
• Published KC probability: 0.5571; home-minus-away edge +0.1141.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.310311.
• Team-run error: 9; total error: 1 over.
• Starters:
• Jameson Taillon: 4 ER/14 projected; 1 ER/6 actual.
• Daniel Lynch IV: 1 ER/15 projected; 5 ER/15 actual.
• Edges: season −0.234, recent +0.165, pitcher −0.039, composite +0.186 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5600 → governed 0.5499; recency guardrail applied; published 0.5571. No volatility change.
• Score path: historical 3.61–5.80 → variance 4–6 → enhanced 5–6 → Savant 5–7 → final 5–7. The Savant stage increased KC’s projected lead.
• Player adjustments: 25 material changes, including Carter Jensen, Springer, Kirk, Salvador Perez, Isbel, Loftin, Straw, and Caglianone.
• Audit: PASS; player actuals unavailable.
• Primary cause: starter_projection.
• Secondary cause: wrong_conviction_side.
• Taillon allowed three fewer ER than projected, while Lynch allowed four more. TOR also scored four more runs than projected and KC scored five fewer.
• The 0.1141 home edge is moderate, not a near coin flip.

WAS@LAD — strong correct call

• Prediction: LAD 5, WAS 4; LAD winner.
• Actual: LAD 5, WAS 3; LAD winner.
• Published LAD probability: 0.5615; home-minus-away edge +0.123.
• Conviction: moderate.
• Brier: 0.192284.
• Team-run error: 1; total error: 1 over.
• Starters:
• Jackson Kent: 4 ER/13 projected; 3 ER/15 actual.
• Blake Snell: 2 ER/16 projected; 0 ER/18 actual.
• Edges: season +0.629, recent +0.042, pitcher −0.021, composite +0.490 home.
• Controls: raw 0.5541 → governed 0.5603; no recency guardrail; published 0.5615. No volatility change.
• Score path: not supplied beyond final score.
• Player adjustments: none supplied.
• Audit: PASS, 0 critical/error/warning, 7 info.
• Causes: none. This was a strong winner and score call.

4. Miss reconstruction

Earliest wrong-direction stage for every loss

BOS@BAL

• Historical ML: 4.63 BOS–3.89 BAL, still away-favored.
• Variance stage: 5–4, still away-favored.
• Enhanced prediction: 4–6, moved to BAL.
• This is the earliest clear winner-direction regression.
• Evidence moved wrong because recent form and matchup adjustments outweighed the negative season edge and near-neutral pitcher edge.
• Main failure type: bad weighting / run-environment overprojection.
• Starter miss then amplified the score error: both starters outperformed projections.
• Irreducible variance remains possible, but the nine-run total overprojection is a systematic run-model concern.

MIN@CHW

• Historical ML: MIN 4.81–CHW 4.01.
• Variance stage: MIN 5–CHW 4.
• Enhanced stage: MIN 6–CHW 5.
• The wrong direction was present before the final stages; Savant and later stages did not recover.
• Main failure types: starter error, bad weighting, and run-environment overprojection.
• Fedde’s projected five ER versus actual zero was decisive.
• The composite edge was only −0.0653 home, so the model had weak directional separation and should not have produced a strong margin.

NYY@SD

• Historical ML already favored NYY 4.46–2.99.
• Variance stage retained NYY 4–3.
• Enhanced stage increased NYY to 5–3.
• Savant stage increased NYY to 6–3.
• There was no later recovery; the winner-direction error was established early and reinforced.
• Main failure types: bad input/feature weighting, overconfidence, starter miss, and irreducible variance.
• The model’s season/recent/composite evidence strongly favored NYY, but the actual game was decided by a one-run margin.
• Buehler’s actual one ER versus projected four reduced the predicted NYY advantage.

OAK@SEA

• Historical ML favored SEA 6.15–3.16.
• Every later score stage retained SEA as winner.
• No stage introduced a new winner-direction regression; the error originated in the initial evidence and was not corrected.
• Main failure type: starter projection error.
• Gilbert’s actual seven ER versus projected one was the key reversal.
• This is not primarily a probability-publication issue; published probability closely matched the calibrated/governed value.

TB@TEX

• Historical ML favored TEX 4.70–3.43.
• Variance stage retained TEX.
• Enhanced stage narrowed the score to TB 3–TEX 4 but did not flip.
• All later stages retained TEX.
• Main failure types: bad weighting and run-environment underdispersion, with a smaller starter contribution.
• The pregame composite edge actually favored TB by −0.1833 home, so the model’s home pick was not strongly supported by its own composite evidence.
• Actual scoring was six runs above the projected total.

TOR@KC

• Historical ML favored KC 5.80–3.61.
• Variance and enhanced stages retained KC.
• Savant moved KC to 7 runs and reinforced the wrong side.
• Main failure types: starter projection, bad weighting, and directional overcommitment.
• Lynch’s actual five ER versus projected one and Taillon’s one versus projected four reversed the expected matchup.
• The final margin error was nine runs.
• The moderate +0.1141 home edge should not be interpreted as a near coin flip, but it was also not strong enough to justify ignoring the contradictory season and pitcher signals.

Required distinction among miss types

• Bad input: possible in the underlying player, lineup, park, weather, or pitcher features, but not directly proven. No source-labelled market data was available, and several player actuals were absent.
• Bad weighting: demonstrated in cases where recent/Savant adjustments moved a weak or contradictory matchup into a stronger wrong-side prediction, especially BOS@BAL, MIN@CHW, and TOR@KC.
• Calibration: demonstrated by 0.1316 weighted calibration error and 33.3% high-conviction miss rate, especially NYY@SD.
• Starter error: directly evidenced in MIN@CHW, OAK@SEA, and TOR@KC, and materially present in BOS@BAL.
• Offense/bullpen miss: present in BOS@BAL, SF@NYM, and TOR@KC, but bullpen-specific causal separation is not supplied.
• Run-environment miss: overdispersion failure in BOS@BAL, MIN@CHW, and NYY@SD; underdispersion in TB@TEX and missed scoring in SF@NYM.
• Irreducible variance: remains plausible in close games such as NYY@SD and TB@TEX, but cannot explain away the persistent run-model and simulation evidence.

Pipeline-stage quality across all stages and transitions

Important transitions:

1. Historical ML → variance applied
2. Winner accuracy fell by 0.125, from 10 to 8 hits.
3. Changed direction: DET@CLE tie, MIL@CIN tie, STL@COL tie.
4. Regressed games: MIL@CIN and STL@COL.
5. Margin MAE improved slightly, but team-run MAE worsened by 0.0225.
6. A later recovery does not erase this intermediate winner-direction regression.

1. Variance applied → enhanced prediction
2. Winner accuracy recovered from 8 to 10.
3. Improved games: DET@CLE, MIL@CIN, STL@COL.
4. Regressed game: BOS@BAL.
5. Margin and team-run MAE improved by 0.125.
6. This recovery does not prove the enhanced stage is universally beneficial; it traded one BOS@BAL directional failure against three recoveries.

1. Enhanced → embedded Savant
2. No winner changes.
3. Team-run MAE worsened from 2.3438 to 2.4062.
4. No score-stage improvement in aggregate.

1. Embedded Savant → fundamental review → capped target → simulation → published
2. No winner changes.
3. No later score-stage improvement after embedded Savant.
4. Simulation made no measured winner intervention.

The pipeline therefore shows a useful enhanced-stage aggregate recovery after variance damage, but also a measurable regression at the Savant transition and no evidence that simulation contributed independent winner information.

5. Cross-game counterfactuals

Lever tension 1: widen run distributions

Lever: score.variance_multiplier / score.variance_floor.

• Helps:
• NYY@SD: lost a 0.29-confidence pick; wider tails could reduce overconfidence.
• TB@TEX: lost a 0.12-confidence pick; wider tails could better represent high scoring.
• TOR@KC: lost a 0.11-confidence pick; wider tails could reduce narrow-score certainty.
• Hurts:
• CHC@MIA: strong correct call at 0.45 edge; widening could soften a good separation.
• LAA@PIT: strong correct call at 0.32 edge; widening could reduce useful confidence.
• Net evidence: 3 helps versus 2 hurts, but the lever targets Brier/calibration and score distribution, not direct winner accuracy. A small bounded change or shadow experiment is more defensible than a broad widening.

Lever tension 2: pitcher form weights and prior games

Lever: player.pitcher.v4 form weights / player.pitcher_prior_games.

• Helps:
• ARI@HOU, BOS@BAL, CHC@MIA, DET@CLE Game 1, LAA@PIT, MIL@CIN, MIN@CHW, NYY@SD, OAK@SEA, TOR@KC.
• Hurts:
• ATL@PHI, SF@NYM, TB@TEX.
• Net evidence: 10 helps versus 3 hurts.
• Caution: several “help” cases are correct-winner games with poor score predictions, so this lever may improve starter ER MAE without necessarily improving winner accuracy. DET@CLE Game 1 also has identity mismatches.

Lever tension 3: recent/season run-mean weighting

Lever: recent.* / season.* run-mean weighting.

• Helps:
• ARI@HOU, BOS@BAL, DET@CLE Game 1, LAA@PIT, MIL@CIN, MIN@CHW, NYY@SD, SF@NYM, TB@TEX, TOR@KC.
• Hurts:
• ATL@PHI, CHC@MIA, DET@CLE Game 2, OAK@SEA, STL@COL, WAS@LAD.
• Net evidence: 10 helps versus 6 hurts.
• Net support is weak-to-moderate because “helps” includes several losses where the lever might improve runs while not fixing the winner.

One-game fixes that must not be made

• Do not globally reverse or suppress NYY@SD based on one high-conviction loss; that would damage CHC@MIA and LAA@PIT-style strong correct calls.
• Do not force every moderate edge toward the road team because TOR@KC and TB@TEX lost; ATL@PHI, MIL@CIN, and WAS@LAD show moderate directional calls can work.
• Do not broadly increase variance solely because of BOS@BAL; CHC@MIA and LAA@PIT were correct strong calls.
• Do not reduce Savant influence solely because of the NYY@SD or TOR@KC losses; the aggregate transition was neutral on winners and improved over historical ML on margin MAE, though it worsened team-run MAE relative to enhanced prediction.
• Do not tune exact-score tails before addressing the near-zero run-model signal and the inert simulation contract.

6. Data and contract defects

Critical findings

Unexplained probability publication deltas

Affected games:

• ARI@HOU:
• Calibrated/governed: 0.6219.
• Published: 0.582503.
• Published minus calibrated: −0.039397.
• Score-coherence probability: 0.603129.
• Transformation recorded as: “no recorded transformation explains the publication delta.”
• SF@NYM:
• Calibrated/governed: 0.5258.
• Published: 0.546831.
• Published minus calibrated: +0.021031.
• Score-coherence probability: 0.555095.
• Same missing-transformation finding.

These are material lineage gaps. The data does not prove the governor was bypassed; it proves that the complete transformation is not recorded.

Error findings

No error findings were reported in the supplied structural-audit summary or per-game audits.

Warning findings

No warning findings were reported.

Informational findings

• 117 total structural-audit info findings.
• All 16 games structurally audited.
• Simulation produced zero flip candidates and zero published flips.
• Various games had informational notes, but no per-game info item was supplied as a prediction-contract failure.
• Six games lacked player-level actuals, limiting causal attribution.

Prediction-model defects versus artifact bugs

Prediction-model/process defects

1. Near-zero run-model signal:
2. Total R² 0.026024.
3. Home R² 0.018723.
4. Away R² 0.026352.
5. High calibration error:
6. Weighted absolute calibration error 0.1316.
7. Score-margin compression:
8. 13/16 predicted margins ≤2, while three actual margins were ≥4.
9. Starter projection instability:
10. Three losses primarily caused by starter projections.
11. Simulation inertness:
12. Zero winner interventions on this slate and an eight-slate persistence streak.

Presentation/artifact/contract defects

1. Missing integrity-revision audit artifact.
2. Unexplained final probability transformations for ARI@HOU and SF@NYM.
3. Duplicate matchup labeling in the causal register for DET@CLE without explicit game-ID distinction.
4. Incomplete starter comparison coverage for DET@CLE Game 2.
5. Missing player-level actuals for six games.

The game artifacts themselves were structurally clean. The defects are chiefly lineage, receipt, coverage, and process-contract issues rather than corrupted score files.

Coverage reconciliation

The slate is not fully “clean” merely because 16/16 structural audits passed:

• Structural coverage is complete.
• Starter coverage is 15/16.
• Probability lineage is materially incomplete in 2/16.
• Integrity-revision receipt is missing.
• Player-level causal coverage is incomplete in 6/16.
• Simulation diagnostics are present but demonstrate an eight-slate inert pattern.

Complete pick-side probability lineage

The normal lineage is:

raw model → calibrated → governor → score coherence/recency → published.

Examples of complete recorded transformations:

• CHC@MIA:
• Raw 0.7374.
• Governor input 0.703355.
• Governed 0.7104.
• Score coherence/published 0.724519.
• Transformation explicitly recorded.
• MIL@CIN:
• Raw 0.6628.
• Governor input 0.5400.
• Governed 0.6526.
• Score coherence 0.658802.
• Published 0.5400 after matchup-recency guardrail.
• Transformation explicitly recorded.
• OAK@SEA:
• Raw 0.5510.
• Governor input 0.5600.
• Governed 0.5499.
• Published 0.548498.
• Transformation says published probability matches calibrated/governed value.

A material bypass is not declared for any game because the supplied evidence does not show an unrecorded material transformation except the two critical cases. For ARI@HOU and SF@NYM, the correct finding is unreconciled transformation, not proven governor bypass.

7. Cross-slate persistence

Seven prior slates were loaded, producing an eight-slate window from 2026-08-28 through 2026-09-04.

Finding streaks

The two eight-slate findings must be treated as established failures, not single-slate noise.

Escalated finding: simulation inertness

• Streak: 8 consecutive slates.
• Target lever: simulation.allow_score.
• Target metrics: team-run MAE and total-run MAE.
• Parameter actionability: false.
• Direction: confirm the simulation module is running and not silently no-oping.
• Evidence: zero winner flips and zero flip candidates on the current 16-game slate; self-assessment identifies the same-draw target-realization/early-exit design as the root cause.
• Correct action: code/diagnostic repair, not a forced parameter adjustment.

The supplied self-assessment says the simulation reuses draws collected while searching for a target-realizing play-by-play and may exit after roughly two selected draws. Such a sample cannot support a probability or flip/agreement signal.

Escalated finding: weak run-model signal

• Streak: 8 consecutive slates.
• Target levers listed: training.xgb.n_estimators, training.xgb.max_depth, training.xgb.learning_rate.
• Target metrics: team-run MAE and total-run MAE.
• Parameter actionability: false in the escalation record.
• Direction: investigate features and target via isolated training backtest.
• Evidence: current holdout R² remains near zero across away, home, and total runs.
• Correct action: feature/target contract work, retraining, and same-fingerprint holdout comparison—not blind nightly hyperparameter tuning.

Top-confidence-pick loss streak

• Reported loss streak: 0.
• Per-slate results: hit, hit, miss, hit, miss, miss, miss, hit.
• The current slate’s top-confidence pick, CHC@MIA at 0.7245 away probability, was a hit.
• There is no current top-confidence loss streak to address.

Metric trends

• Margin bias: improving. Series moved from −1.333 to −0.688; mean −2.1959.
• Mean team-run error on losses: flat. Mean 6.1906; current slate 6.0.
• Weighted calibration error: improving. Series ended at 0.1316 from 0.2179, though still materially high.
• Winner accuracy: improving. Current slate 0.625; eight-slate series ends at 0.625, mean 0.5694.
• Top-confidence loss streak: 0, therefore no regressing streak exists.

Improving trends do not neutralize the escalated eight-slate run-model and simulation defects.

8. Adjustments for today

Recommendations are ranked by persistence first, then scope, expected metric impact, and regression risk.

1. Repair and independently validate simulation — highest evidence strength

• Pattern: simulation inertness, eight consecutive slates.
• Registered lever: simulation.allow_score, but this is a diagnostic/code target rather than a safe parameter move.
• Change: do not force a numeric parameter adjustment; enable and validate an independent unsteered simulation batch for win-probability estimation. The batch should not early-exit while searching for a target-realizing score.
• Expected metrics: improve the validity of winner-probability contribution; potentially improve team-run MAE and total-run MAE. Direction expected: lower MAE and nonzero, interpretable winner-intervention rate.
• Helps: games with large score-path disagreement or high volatility, especially NYY@SD, TB@TEX, TOR@KC, and the large-swing cases.
• Hurts/risk: could soften strong correct calls such as CHC@MIA and LAA@PIT if the independent distribution is noisier; rollback if rolling Brier or winner accuracy worsens.
• Required action: code/diagnostic repair in the simulation builder and draw loop, followed by a shadow comparison. Do not promote until the missing distribution contribution is measurable.

2. Run an isolated run-model feature/target backtest — persistent pattern

• Pattern: weak run-model signal, eight consecutive slates.
• Registered targets: training.xgb.n_estimators, training.xgb.max_depth, training.xgb.learning_rate.
• Recommended bounded change: no direct nightly hyperparameter move. Perform the registered isolated training experiment after adding or validating park/weather environment, bullpen rest/fatigue, platoon-adjusted lineup quality, and properly source-labelled no-vig market information where available.
• Expected metrics: increase away/home/total holdout R² and reduce team-run MAE and total-run MAE.
• Helps: broad run-error games such as BOS@BAL, LAA@PIT, MIN@CHW, SF@NYM, and TOR@KC.
• Hurts/risk: could overfit and damage low-error games such as ATL@PHI, CHC@MIA, DET@CLE Game 2, STL@COL, and WAS@LAD. Require same-fingerprint holdout comparison and rollback on degraded total-run MAE or calibration.
• This is a code/data/training action, not a forced parameter adjustment.

3. Apply a small shadow change to pitcher prior weighting — strongest current single-slate driver

• Pattern: starter projection was the primary cause in three of six losses: MIN@CHW, OAK@SEA, TOR@KC.
• Registered parameter: player.pitcher_prior_games within player.pitcher.v4 form weighting.
• Change: small increase in prior-history weight / modestly increase prior games, preferably in shadow mode. The exact numeric magnitude is not supplied in the evidence, so the change should be the smallest registered configuration increment available, not an invented large shift.
• Expected metric: lower starter_er_mae and starter_outs_mae; directional improvement expected secondarily.
• Helps: the 10 games listed by the lever-tension record, including the three primary starter-projection losses.
• Hurts/risk: ATL@PHI, SF@NYM, and TB@TEX had accurate starter projections; excessive reweighting could disturb them. Roll back if starter MAE improves but winner Brier or total-run MAE degrades.
• This is a bounded shadow experiment, not a full promotion.

4. Small confidence/variance calibration shadow

• Pattern: current weighted calibration error 0.1316 and high-conviction miss rate 33.3%.
• Registered parameters: confidence.base_cap, confidence.moderate_cap, score.variance_multiplier, score.variance_floor.
• Change: lower confidence caps slightly and widen run variance slightly, in shadow mode only.
• Expected metrics: lower Brier score, lower calibration error, and reduce overconfident tail behavior; score-margin spread should become less compressed.
• Helps: NYY@SD, TB@TEX, and TOR@KC are the direct tension beneficiaries.
• Hurts/risk: CHC@MIA and LAA@PIT were strong correct calls that could be softened; monitor high-confidence hit rate and calibration by bucket.
• Because the high-raw cluster is not present on this slate and its current result was 3/3, this recommendation is weaker than the persistent code/model actions.

Changes explicitly not recommended today

• Do not force score.variance_multiplier to a large value based on NYY@SD alone.
• Do not alter winner-side selection rules based solely on the moderate TB@TEX or TOR@KC losses.
• Do not promote a probability-calibration change until ARI@HOU and SF@NYM lineage is reconciled.
• Do not claim simulation is fixed merely because a future slate produces a winner flip; verify independent draws and rolling metrics.

9. Bottom line

Known

• The slate went 10–6, or 62.5%, above the supplied walk-forward baseline.
• Score quality was materially weaker than winner accuracy: 13/16 predicted margins were ≤2, while three actual margins were at least four runs.
• Six losses had mean team-run error of six runs.
• Starter projections were the primary labelled cause in three losses.
• Run-model holdout R² is near zero across all run targets and has persisted as an escalated eight-slate problem.
• Simulation inertness has persisted for eight slates and is a code/diagnostic concern, not a parameter-tuning opportunity.
• Every structural game audit passed, but probability lineage is not complete for ARI@HOU and SF@NYM.
• The integrity-revision artifact is missing.

Uncertain

• Whether recent/Savant weighting is causally responsible for the individual wrong-side calls; lever-tension counts are observational.
• Whether the best pitcher adjustment is more prior history, less recent-form weight, or improved pitcher features.
• Whether widening variance improves future Brier/calibration without weakening strong correct calls.
• The extent to which bullpen, weather, park, lineup, and other absent or imperfect inputs contributed to the run misses.
• Exact score accuracy cannot be summarized as a rate from the supplied fields because no slate-wide exact-score metric is provided.

Single safest next action

Block promotion and repair the probability/simulation contracts first: reconcile the ARI@HOU and SF@NYM pick-side probability transformations, then run an independent non-early-exit simulation in shadow mode while preserving the current production output.

That action addresses the only critical contract defect, tests the eight-slate simulation failure without risking the next slate, and creates the evidence needed before changing model weights or confidence caps.