Luna deep analysis — slate 20260917

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

1. Evidence receipt and gaps

Sources received

All seven source_manifest entries were checked against the supplied evidence:

The missing integrity-revision audit is an evidence gap. It does not invalidate the settled-game results, because the structural audits, prediction artifacts, and game-level audit receipts are present, but it prevents independent confirmation of post-remediation immutable-revision status.

Slate coverage

All nine expected games were reviewed:

• BOS@TEX
• DET@CHW
• KC@HOU
• LAD@CIN
• MIL@PIT
• MIN@LAA
• OAK@TB
• PHI@NYM
• SD@COL

Coverage was complete:

• Expected games: 9
• Games structurally audited: 9
• Forensic deep-audit games: 9
• Continuous-learning games: 9
• Starter comparisons: 9
• Canonical artifacts loaded: 9
• Learning eligibility: eligible; all critical/error structural gates passed

All nine game-level structural audits reported zero critical findings, zero errors, and zero warnings. They reported 70 informational findings in aggregate.

Internal contradictions and evidence limitations

1. BOS@TEX probability-lineage wording is internally awkward. The row says published_minus_calibrated = -0.009473, the transformation says “no recorded transformation explains the publication delta,” but unexplained_material_delta is false. The delta is small and not material, so this is not a material bypass, but the wording should be normalized.

1. The missing integrity-revision artifact remains unresolved. It is the only missing manifest entry.

1. Published probability and confidence edge use different representations. For example, LAD@CIN has a governed/calibrated probability of 0.7106, but its published away-side probability is 0.56 and its displayed home-minus-away edge is -0.12. This is explainable by the named score-coherence and recency transformations, but reports should make the selected side and side-relative probability explicit.

1. The pipeline-stage table contains a meaningful winner-direction regression that is not obvious from aggregate final accuracy. BOS@TEX moves historical ML TEX → TIE, then enhanced prediction moves TIE → TEX. The later recovery does not erase the intermediate regression.

1. No market cross-check was available. There were zero source-labelled moneyline covers, so market agreement/disagreement cannot be evaluated.

1. Player-level results are noisy. Only 13 of 53 material player deviations were supported by the hitter’s own season contact quality, a learnable share of 24.5%. The other deviations should not be treated as feature evidence.

2. Executive diagnosis

Overall result

• Winner accuracy: 4/9 = 44.44%
• Misses: 5
• Reported walk-forward accuracy: 56.47%
• Reported walk-forward Brier: 0.243312
• Slate winner Brier from game records: average approximately 0.2568
• Mean team-run error: approximately 3.67 runs
• Mean total-run bias across the slate: approximately +1.11 runs
• High-conviction games: 4
• High-conviction misses: 2
• High-conviction miss rate: 50%
• Published confidence was not anti-predictive by the formal flag, but it was materially overconfident in the settled calibration buckets.

This was not a good prediction slate merely because four winners were correct. Winner accuracy was below the stated walk-forward baseline and below coin-flip performance on this slate. Exact-score performance was substantially weaker than winner performance.

Separate diagnoses

Winner accuracy

Poor on this slate:

• 4/9 correct
• 44.44% versus a 56.47% walk-forward baseline
• Self-assessment: beat_coinflip: false, beat_validated_baseline: false
• Trend: winner_accuracy is regressing; current slate is the lowest value in the displayed recent series at 44.44%

The five misses were BOS@TEX, DET@CHW, MIL@PIT, MIN@LAA, and PHI@NYM.

Calibration quality

Calibration was weak and overconfident:

• 0.50–0.55 bucket: average confidence 0.532, observed hit rate 0.400, calibration error +0.132
• 0.55–0.60 bucket: average confidence 0.5635, observed hit rate 0.500, calibration error +0.0635
• Settled games in calibration monitor: 9
• Weighted absolute calibration error: 0.1016
• High-confidence cluster: 2/2 hits, but the cluster’s empirical hit rates were only 0.5536 and 0.5846 despite raw probabilities above 0.65

The model did reduce high raw probabilities through score coherence and matchup-recency guardrails. That is good lineage behavior, but the residual published confidence still overstated reliability in the moderate and lean buckets.

Score accuracy

Score accuracy was materially weak:

• Holdout R²:
• Away runs: 0.02324
• Home runs: 0.002745
• Total runs: 0.005629
• The causal register correctly labels this a high-severity weak-run-model issue.
• The model predicted margins of 2 runs or fewer in 6/9 games, while actual margins of at least 4 occurred in 4/9.
• Actual margins: 1, 2, 4, 6, 3, 1, 9, 3, 7
• Predicted margins: 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3
• Signed margin bias: -0.778
• Cross-slate margin bias trend: regressing

The system systematically compressed the margin distribution, particularly in OAK@TB and SD@COL.

Starter accuracy

Starter performance was mixed and often decisive:

• Mean starter ERA error: 2.16
• Five of 17 listed starts exceeded projected ERA by at least 3.00:
• Kyle Harrison: +16.2 ERA error
• Brady Singer: +11.19
• Tanner Gordon: +10.2
• Jeffrey Springs: +8.49
• Seth Lugo: +5.4
• One thin-history starter was identified: Miguel Ullola, six prior appearances in the feed.
• The starter lever had balanced cross-game evidence: 4 games helped, 4 games hurt. No broad starter-weight adjustment is justified from this slate alone.

Venue-split evidence was specifically credible for several blown starters, especially Seth Lugo, Kyle Harrison, and Tanner Gordon. This supports a bounded shadow test of context.venue_adjustment_weight, but not an unvalidated production change.

Artifact integrity

Artifact integrity was strong for the settled game artifacts:

• All nine game-level structural audits passed.
• All reported zero critical, error, and warning findings.
• Probability reversions:
• Artifacts checked: 9
• Blend flips: 0
• Side survived to publication: 9
• Overwritten: 0
• Six material calibrated-to-published movements were explained by score-coherence and/or recency transformations.
• Simulation produced zero winner flips on this slate.

However, the missing integrity-revision audit prevents a fully closed artifact-revision receipt.

Causal issue register reconciliation

weak_run_model_signal — High

• Severity: high
• Evidence: home/away/total R² = 0.0027/0.0232/0.0056
• Affected games: all nine
• Action: treat exact scores as low-confidence; improve features or target before tuning score tails
• Guardrail: a small positive R² only means the model beats guessing the average; it does not make exact scores reliable

This is a material model-validation risk, not a contract failure. The appropriate action is an isolated feature/target backtest, not a nightly score tweak.

complete_slate_audit_coverage — Info

• Severity: info
• Evidence: 9/9 games structurally audited
• Affected games: all nine
• Action: retain per-game audit receipts
• Guardrail: full audit coverage does not cancel within-game findings

Correctly classified as informational.

probability_publication_delta_explained — Info

• Severity: info
• Evidence: six material movements, all named as score-coherence and/or recency transformations
• Affected games: DET@CHW, KC@HOU, LAD@CIN, MIL@PIT, OAK@TB, SD@COL
• Action: continue displaying every probability layer and transformation
• Guardrail: a published probability above the calibrated probability is not a governor bypass when the transformation is recorded

This is supported. BOS@TEX has a small wording inconsistency but no material unexplained delta.

simulation_inert_on_slate — Info for this slate, escalated persistent failure across slates

• Severity in the register: info
• Evidence on this slate: zero flip candidates and zero published flips
• Affected games: all nine
• Action on the slate: measure simulation contribution across rolling slates
• Guardrail: zero winner flips is not itself a defect and does not prove that no score reconciliation occurred

Cross-slate evidence changes the operational diagnosis: this has persisted for 11 consecutive slates and is now an established code/diagnostic failure pattern.

3. Every game

The game records use confidence_home_minus_away; negative values indicate an away-side edge. The published pick probability below is the probability of the selected side.

BOS@TEX — miss; correct-winner/wrong-score: no

• Predicted: TEX 4, BOS 3; predicted winner TEX
• Actual: BOS 4, TEX 3; winner BOS
• Published selected-side probability: TEX 0.553827
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away +0.1077, moderate
• Brier: 0.306724
• Team-run absolute error: 2
• Total-run bias: 0
• Starter lines:
• BOS Sonny Gray: projected 2 ER/18 outs, actual 3 ER/19 outs; ERA 3.00 projected vs 4.26 actual; ER error +1
• TEX Tyler Alexander: projected 1 ER/15 outs, actual 0 ER/3 outs; ERA 1.80 vs 0.00; ER error -1
• Edges:
• Season home-minus-away: -0.484
• Recent: +0.262
• Pitcher: -0.061
• Composite: -0.154
• Controls:
• Governor applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.5633 before publication
• No recency guardrail
• No score-volatility change
• Starter-experience shrinkage not applied
• Score path: 3.915–4.294 historical ML → 4–4 variance baseline → 3–4 enhanced → 3–4 through Savant, target review, cap, and simulation.
• Player adjustments:
• Sonny Gray predicted strikeouts increased by 2
• Danny Jansen RBI projection worsened by 1.67
• Jake Burger RBI projection improved by 1.45
• Corey Seager AB projection worsened by 1.27
• Trevor Story strikeout projection worsened by 1.34
• Material player changes: 22
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes. Saved artifact was not the cause.
• Causes:
• Primary: wrong conviction side
• Secondary: none
• Actual game-level explanation: BOS lineup scored below projection by 2, TEX lineup below projection by 1; result was close, but the directional side was wrong.
• Important caution: this was a moderate 0.11 edge, not a near-coin-flip classification and not a high-conviction pick.

DET@CHW — miss; correct-winner/wrong-score: no

• Predicted: DET 5, CHW 4; predicted winner DET
• Actual: DET 1, CHW 3; winner CHW
• Published selected-side probability: DET approximately 0.530
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away -0.060, lean
• Brier: 0.280900
• Team-run absolute error: 5
• Total-run bias: +5
• Starter lines:
• DET Framber Valdez: projected 3 ER/18 outs, actual 3 ER/15 outs; projected ERA 4.50 vs actual 5.40; ER error 0
• CHW Erick Fedde: projected 5 ER/14 outs, actual 1 ER/14 outs; projected ERA 9.64 vs actual 1.93; ER error -4
• Edges:
• Season: -0.442
• Recent: -0.770
• Pitcher: +0.084
• Composite: -0.431
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.5837 before later controls
• Starter-experience shrinkage not applied
• supported_blowout_margin_expansion applied to the away side
• Score path: 4.539–4.383 historical → 5–4 variance baseline → 5–4 enhanced → 5–4 through final simulation.
• Player adjustments:
• Javier Báez RBI projection improved by 3.66
• Randal Grichuk AB projection worsened by 2.50
• Chase Meidroth strikeout projection worsened by 2.07
• Miguel Vargas hit projection worsened by 1.89
• Material player changes: 25
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; seven informational notes.
• Causes:
• Primary: starter projection
• Secondary: run environment over
• Fedde allowed four fewer ER than projected. DET’s offense was over-projected by four. This was a large score miss and a wrong side, not merely a one-run variance outcome.

KC@HOU — hit; correct-winner/wrong-score: yes

• Predicted: HOU 5, KC 4; predicted winner HOU
• Actual: HOU 6, KC 2; winner HOU
• Published selected-side probability: HOU 0.529531
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away +0.0591, lean
• Brier: 0.221341
• Team-run absolute error: 3
• Total-run bias: +1
• Starter lines:
• KC Seth Lugo: projected 1 ER/15 outs, actual 4 ER/15 outs; ERA 1.80 vs 7.20; ER error +3
• HOU Miguel Ullola: projected 4 ER/9 outs, actual 1 ER/2 outs; ERA 12.00 vs 13.50; ER error -3
• Edges:
• Season: +0.118
• Recent: -0.234
• Pitcher: +0.011
• Composite: +0.211
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Thin-history starter shrinkage applied to Ullola: six prior appearances, shrink factor 0.675; probability changed from 0.5606 to 0.540874 without changing the winner
• No score-volatility change
• Large Savant run-environment swing flag
• Score path: 4.539–4.383 historical → 5–4 variance → 5–4 enhanced → 5–4 final.
• Player adjustments:
• LaMonte Wade Jr. exceeded projection by 1.85 runs
• Taylor Trammell by 1.26
• Jeremy Peña by 1.09
• Daulton Varsho by 0.93
• Jac Caglianone underperformed by 0.78
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; seven informational notes.
• Causes: no registered primary/secondary driver. The winner was correct, but the score was wrong.
• Forensic interpretation: Seth Lugo’s credible away split was underweighted. The recommended shadow lever is context.venue_adjustment_weight, not an immediate production change.

LAD@CIN — hit; correct-winner/wrong-score: yes

• Predicted: LAD 9, CIN 5; predicted winner LAD
• Actual: LAD 8, CIN 2; winner LAD
• Published selected-side probability: LAD 0.56
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away -0.12, moderate
• Brier: 0.193600
• Team-run absolute error: 4
• Total-run bias: +4
• Starter lines:
• LAD Justin Wrobleski: projected 3 ER/15 outs, actual 0 ER/9 outs; ERA 5.40 vs 0.00; ER error -3
• CIN Brady Singer: projected 4 ER/14 outs, actual 7 ER/10 outs; ERA 7.71 vs 18.90; ER error +3
• Edges:
• Season: -1.929
• Recent: -1.414
• Pitcher: -0.059
• Composite: -2.264
• Controls:
• Governor, score coherence, and matchup-recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.7106 before publication
• supported_blowout_margin_expansion
• High raw cluster member; published probability was reduced to 0.56
• Score path: approximately 5–4 historical → 6–4 variance → 8–5 enhanced → 9–5 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Kyle Tucker exceeded projection by 2.63 runs, supported by above-average xwOBA 0.330
• Miguel Rojas by 1.87
• Sal Stewart by 1.40, supported by elite xwOBA 0.346
• Elly De La Cruz underperformed by 1.73
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes: none registered; this was a solid winner call with score overstatement.
• Important classification: correct winner, wrong score. Brady Singer’s strong-offense matchup and large ERA miss were directionally useful, but the exact 9–5 forecast was too high.

MIL@PIT — miss; correct-winner/wrong-score: no

• Predicted: MIL 6, PIT 4; predicted winner MIL
• Actual: MIL 4, PIT 7; winner PIT
• Published selected-side probability: MIL 0.56
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away -0.12, moderate
• Brier: 0.313600
• Team-run absolute error: 5
• Total-run bias: -1
• Starter lines:
• MIL Kyle Harrison: projected 3 ER/15 outs, actual 4 ER/5 outs; ERA 5.40 vs 21.60; ER error +1, ERA error +16.2
• PIT Wilber Dotel: projected 1 ER/15 outs, actual 1 ER/6 outs; ERA 1.80 vs 4.50; ER error 0
• Edges:
• Season: -1.170
• Recent: -1.138
• Pitcher: -0.061
• Composite: -1.423
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• supported_blowout_margin_expansion toward MIL
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.6562 before publication
• Score path: 5–4 historical → 5–4 variance → 6–4 enhanced → 6–4 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Brandon Lowe improved by 2.69 projected hits
• Joey Ortiz AB improved by 1.85
• Sal Frelick RBI improved by 1.82
• Jackson Chourio underperformed by 1.36
• Bo Naylor exceeded RBI projection by 1.75
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes:
• Primary: wrong conviction side
• Secondary: lean-side miss in the registered labels, despite the displayed moderate 0.12 edge
• Kyle Harrison’s credible away split was underweighted; PIT offense was under-projected by 3.
• A 0.12 edge is moderate, not a near coin flip. The problem was not that the edge was “almost zero”; it was that a moderate directional signal was treated too confidently relative to the calibration evidence.

MIN@LAA — miss; correct-winner/wrong-score: no

• Predicted: MIN 4, LAA 3; predicted winner MIN
• Actual: MIN 4, LAA 5; winner LAA
• Published selected-side probability: MIN 0.516481
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away -0.033, toss-up
• Brier: 0.266753
• Team-run absolute error: 2
• Total-run bias: -2
• Starter lines:
• MIN Taj Bradley: projected 3 ER/18 outs, actual 3 ER/21 outs; ERA 4.50 vs 3.86; ER error 0
• LAA Walbert Ureña: projected 1 ER/17 outs, actual 0 ER/21 outs; ERA 1.59 vs 0.00; ER error -1
• Edges:
• Season: +0.079
• Recent: +0.407
• Pitcher: -0.034
• Composite: -0.110
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.5228
• No score-volatility change
• No experience shrinkage
• Score path: 4.523–3.893 historical → 5–4 variance → 4–3 enhanced → 4–3 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Walker Jenkins exceeded projection by 2.01 runs
• Oswald Peraza by 0.94
• Zach Neto underperformed by 1.40
• Mike Trout strikeout projection worsened by 1.17
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes:
• Primary: toss-up variance
• Secondary: none
• This is not evidence for a model change. Both starters were close to the projected ER lines, and the actual one-run result was consistent with ordinary variance.

OAK@TB — hit; correct-winner/wrong-score: yes

• Predicted: TB 7, OAK 4; predicted winner TB
• Actual: TB 10, OAK 1; winner TB
• Published selected-side probability: TB 0.58
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away +0.16, moderate
• Brier: 0.176400
• Team-run absolute error: 6
• Total-run bias: 0
• Starter lines:
• OAK Jeffrey Springs: projected 4 ER/14 outs, actual 6 ER/10 outs; ERA 7.71 vs 16.20; ER error +2
• TB Drew Rasmussen: projected 2 ER/18 outs, actual 0 ER/15 outs; ERA 3.00 vs 0.00; ER error -2
• Edges:
• Season: +1.683
• Recent: +1.202
• Pitcher: +0.052
• Composite: +1.880
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.6502
• supported_blowout_margin_expansion
• Large Savant run-environment swing flag
• Score path: roughly 5–4 historical → 5–4 variance → 6–4 enhanced → 7–4 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Lawrence Butler exceeded projection by 1.07 runs, supported by above-average xwOBA 0.321
• Richie Palacios by 0.97
• Junior Caminero underperformed by 1.07
• Zack Gelof underperformed by 0.93
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes: none registered; correct winner, wrong score.
• Important classification: correct winner, wrong score. The model identified the side but materially understated the margin.

PHI@NYM — miss; correct-winner/wrong-score: no

• Predicted: NYM 4, PHI 3; predicted winner NYM
• Actual: PHI 3, NYM 0; winner PHI
• Published selected-side probability: NYM 0.544183
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away +0.0884, lean
• Brier: 0.296135
• Team-run absolute error: 4
• Total-run bias: +4
• Starter lines:
• PHI Aaron Nola: projected 4 ER/18 outs, actual 0 ER/21 outs; ERA 6.00 vs 0.00; ER error -4
• NYM Nolan McLean: projected 2 ER/18 outs, actual 1 ER/18 outs; ERA 3.00 vs 1.50; ER error -1
• Edges:
• Season: -0.312
• Recent: +0.358
• Pitcher: +0.068
• Composite: +0.247
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.5612
• No score-volatility change
• Large Savant run-environment swing flag
• Score path: 4–5 historical → 4–5 variance → 3–4 enhanced → 3–4 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Bryce Harper exceeded projection by 0.94 runs, supported by elite xwOBA 0.385
• Kyle Schwarber underperformed by 1.40
• Trea Turner AB projection worsened by 2.94
• Francisco Alvarez RBI projection improved by 1.59
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes:
• Primary: starter projection
• Secondary: lean-side miss
• Nola’s four-ER projection error was decisive. The forensic attribution calls the start an outlier with no credible venue, opponent, or experience explanation. No model change is warranted for Nola’s individual result.

SD@COL — hit; correct-winner/wrong-score: yes

• Predicted: SD 8, COL 5; predicted winner SD
• Actual: SD 9, COL 2; winner SD
• Published selected-side probability: SD 0.54
• System confidence edge: home-minus-away -0.08, lean
• Brier: 0.211600
• Team-run absolute error: 4
• Total-run bias: +2
• Starter lines:
• SD Michael King: projected 3 ER/19 outs, actual 2 ER/18 outs; ERA 4.26 vs 3.00; ER error -1
• COL Tanner Gordon: projected 6 ER/15 outs, actual 7 ER/9 outs; ERA 10.80 vs 21.00; ER error +1
• Edges:
• Season: -1.504
• Recent: -1.654
• Pitcher: -0.064
• Composite: -1.922
• Controls:
• Governor and recency guardrail applied
• Confidence pipeline reached 0.6972
• supported_blowout_margin_expansion
• High raw cluster member; published probability reduced to 0.54
• Score path: roughly 5–4 historical → 5–4 variance → 7–4 enhanced → 8–5 final.
• Player adjustments:
• Xander Bogaerts exceeded projection by 2.47
• Dustin Harris by 0.94, supported by above-average xwOBA 0.336
• Manny Machado underperformed by 1.73
• Tanner Gordon’s credible home weakness was underweighted
• Audit: PASS; zero critical/error/warning findings; eight informational notes.
• Causes: none registered; solid correct winner call with wrong score.
• Important classification: correct winner, wrong score.

Game-level summary

Correct winners:

• KC@HOU
• LAD@CIN
• OAK@TB
• SD@COL

Correct winner but wrong score:

• KC@HOU
• LAD@CIN
• OAK@TB
• SD@COL

Misses:

• BOS@TEX — wrong side
• DET@CHW — starter and run-environment miss
• MIL@PIT — wrong side, underweighted venue split
• MIN@LAA — toss-up variance
• PHI@NYM — starter projection miss and lean-side miss

There were no exact-score hits reported.

4. Miss reconstruction

Earliest wrong-direction stages

BOS@TEX

• Earliest adverse movement: historical ML projected TEX ahead, but variance application moved the direction to a tie; enhanced prediction restored TEX.
• The decisive problem was not a late artifact or simulation flip. The fundamental evidence was contradictory:
• Season edge favored BOS by 0.484
• Recent form favored TEX by 0.262
• Pitcher edge favored BOS by 0.061
• Composite favored BOS by 0.154
• Diagnosis: bad weighting / wrong conviction side, with irreducible close-game variance also present.
• The 0.11 edge was moderate, not near-coin-flip confidence.

DET@CHW

• Historical ML already favored DET, consistent with the eventual wrong direction.
• Enhanced, Savant, target review, and simulation preserved DET.
• The earliest wrong evidence was the run/starter input structure that projected DET for 5 and CHW for 4, especially the CHW starter line of 5 ER/9.64 ERA.
• Actual Fedde allowed 1 ER, four fewer than projected.
• Diagnosis: bad starter input/projection, compounded by run-environment overprojection and overconfidence in the away side.

MIL@PIT

• Historical ML favored MIL; variance preserved that direction.
• Enhanced prediction increased MIL’s expected runs from 5 to 6 and maintained the wrong side.
• Savant adjustments slightly reduced both teams but did not correct direction.
• Kyle Harrison’s away split was credible and materially adverse, yet the venue-role weakness was underweighted.
• Diagnosis: bad weighting, specifically venue-split weighting, plus a large starter realization error and PIT offense underprojection.

MIN@LAA

• Historical ML favored MIN; variance, enhanced prediction, and final simulation retained MIN.
• The evidence was nearly balanced:
• Composite home edge only -0.110
• Published away probability about 0.516
• Displayed edge only 0.033
• Both starters were broadly accurate by ER, and the actual one-run result flipped the predicted side.
• Diagnosis: irreducible variance, not a validated model defect.

PHI@NYM

• Historical ML favored NYM and the enhanced score path retained NYM.
• The strongest adverse realization was Aaron Nola: projected 4 ER, actual 0 ER.
• No credible contextual signal explains the outlier.
• Diagnosis: starter projection miss, specifically irreducible/outlier variance, plus a lean-side miss.

Loss-cause classification

Across five losses:

• Starter projection: 2 registered primary drivers — DET@CHW and PHI@NYM
• Toss-up variance: 1 — MIN@LAA
• Wrong conviction side: 2 — BOS@TEX and MIL@PIT
• Bad input: most clearly CHW starter projection line; no structural identity error was found
• Bad weighting: venue-role weighting for MIL@PIT, and possibly BOS@TEX conflicting season/recent weighting
• Calibration: confidence was too high relative to observed performance, but calibration did not independently create each wrong side
• Offense/bullpen miss:
• PIT offense under-projected by 3 in MIL@PIT
• DET offense over-projected by 4 in DET@CHW
• NYM offense underperformed by 4 in PHI@NYM
• Run-environment miss: strongest in DET@CHW and PHI@NYM; total runs were over-projected by 5 and 4 respectively
• Irreducible variance: strongest in MIN@LAA and PHI@NYM’s Nola outlier

A 0.12 confidence edge is moderate. It should not be described as a near coin flip, but neither should it be treated as high-confidence certainty. The appropriate response is calibration and distribution control, not removal of all directional signal.

Pipeline-stage quality across all stages

Transitions:

1. Historical ML → variance applied:
2. Margin MAE regressed +0.0843
3. Team-run MAE improved -0.0307
4. Winner accuracy unchanged
5. BOS moved TEX → TIE: an intermediate winner-direction regression

1. Variance applied → enhanced prediction:
2. Margin MAE improved -0.1111
3. Team-run MAE improved -0.1667
4. BOS moved TIE → TEX: later recovery
5. This recovery does not erase the intermediate regression

1. Enhanced → embedded Savant:
2. Margin MAE improved -0.1112
3. Team-run MAE worsened +0.0555
4. Winner accuracy unchanged

1. Embedded Savant → fundamental review:
2. No change

1. Fundamental review → capped:
2. No change

1. Capped → simulation:
2. No change

1. Simulation → published final:
2. No change

The system’s later stages improved run-error metrics relative to historical ML, but none improved winner accuracy, and simulation made no measurable winner-direction intervention.

5. Cross-game counterfactuals

Lever tension: widen run distributions

Lever: score.variance_multiplier / score.variance_floor Targets: Brier score, calibration error

Helps

• BOS@TEX: lost a 0.11-confidence pick; wider tails would reduce overconfidence in a close matchup.
• MIL@PIT: lost a 0.12-confidence pick; wider tails would better represent the possibility of a moderate edge failing.

Hurts

• No harmed games were recorded in the lever-tension entry.

Net evidence

• 2 games helped, 0 hurt on this slate.
• Cross-slate evidence shows lineup runs were below projection on 8 of 12 slates, but the registered bias is not statistically separable from noise.
• A bounded shadow experiment is reasonable, but widening variance cannot repair the near-zero run-model signal or guarantee better exact scores.

Lever tension: pitcher form weights / prior games

Lever: player.pitcher.v4 form weights / player.pitcher_prior_games Targets: starter ER MAE, starter outs MAE

Helps

• DET@CHW: Fedde was four ER better than projected.
• KC@HOU: Lugo was three ER worse and Ullola three ER better than projected.
• LAD@CIN: Singer was three ER worse than projected.
• PHI@NYM: Nola was four ER better than projected.

Hurts

• BOS@TEX: starter projection was relatively accurate; ER error 1.
• MIL@PIT: starter ER error 1 for Harrison under the registered absolute-ER measure.
• MIN@LAA: starter ER errors 0 and -1.
• SD@COL: starter ER errors -1 and +1.

Net evidence

• 4 helped, 4 hurt.
• No broad form-weight change is supported.
• The venue-specific problem is narrower than the general pitcher-form lever. Use context.venue_adjustment_weight in a shadow test for credible split cases instead of changing global pitcher priors.

Lever tension: recent/season run-mean weighting

Lever: recent.* / season.* run-mean weighting Targets: team-run MAE, total-run MAE, accuracy

Helps

• DET@CHW: reduced reliance on an incorrect high run environment would help.
• LAD@CIN: score was directionally correct; better weighting may reduce the 4-run total overprojection.
• MIL@PIT: PIT offense was under-projected.
• OAK@TB: winner was right, but margin was understated.
• PHI@NYM: lower run environment would help.
• SD@COL: margin was understated.

Hurts

• BOS@TEX: team-run error was only 2; more reweighting could disturb a close score.
• MIN@LAA: team-run error was only 2; no evidence supports a broad adjustment from this game.

Net evidence

• 6 helped, 2 hurt.
• This is the strongest slate-level bounded model lever among the listed tensions, but cross-slate evidence does not support an unvalidated production change because run-model R² is near zero. A shadow change is preferable.

Tempting fixes that should not be made

• Do not globally increase pitcher form weighting from these nine games; the evidence is 4–4.
• Do not tune to individual outlier starts such as Aaron Nola, Fedde, or Singer.
• Do not treat all 53 player deviations as learnable; only 13 had supporting season contact-quality evidence.
• Do not increase confidence simply because LAD, OAK, or SD won; those were correct winners but wrong scores.
• Do not remove moderate edges entirely because BOS and MIL lost. A 0.12 edge is moderate, not a coin-flip label.
• Do not force a parameter change for the persistent simulation failure; the registered action is a code/diagnostic fix.
• Do not tune score tails as a substitute for fixing the near-zero run-model features and target.

6. Data and contract defects

Critical findings

No critical audit findings were reported in the nine game audits or the structural audit summary.

The missing integrity-revision artifact is a manifest gap, but it was not reported as a critical settled-game contract failure.

Error findings

No error audit findings were reported.

Warning findings

No warning audit findings were reported.

Informational findings

The aggregate structural audit reported 70 informational findings. The principal informational findings were:

• All nine games structurally audited.
• All nine game artifacts passed.
• Six material calibrated-to-published probability movements had named transformations.
• Simulation produced zero winner flips.
• Numerous game-level informational notes documented confidence controls, player changes, score-volatility decisions, and recency handling.

Model defects versus artifact bugs

Prediction-model defects

1. Weak run-model signal — high severity
2. Total-run R² 0.005629
3. Home-run R² 0.002745
4. Away-run R² 0.02324
5. Requires feature/target investigation and isolated retraining backtest.

1. Simulation inertness — persistent code/diagnostic defect
2. 11 consecutive slates
3. Zero flip candidates and zero published flips on this slate
4. The self-assessment identifies the likely cause: simulation uses the same target-realization draws, early exits after finding a play-by-play realization, and then treats roughly two selected draws as a probability distribution.
5. This is a code/diagnostic problem, not a parameter-tuning problem.

1. Margin compression
2. Actual margins ≥4 in 4/9 games, predicted margins ≤2 in 6/9.
3. Cross-slate margin-bias trend is regressing.

1. Calibration overconfidence
2. Weighted absolute calibration error 0.1016
3. 50% high-conviction miss rate
4. Moderate and lean buckets both overconfident.

1. Player projection separation
2. Hit and strikeout spread ratios only 0.402 and 0.423.
3. RBI per-player model lost to a flat slate mean: MAE 0.642 versus 0.597.
4. HR model also lost to the flat mean: 0.189 versus 0.171.

Presentation/artifact defects

1. BOS@TEX lineage wording says no transformation explains a delta while marking it non-material and not unexplained. This should be clarified.
2. The missing integrity-revision audit is a presentation/receipt gap unless independently shown to reflect an actual missing immutable-revision check.
3. Probability layers should consistently identify:
4. raw model probability
5. calibrated probability
6. governor input
7. governor output
8. score-coherence probability
9. recency adjustment
10. published selected-side probability

Coverage reconciliation

The coverage matrix is clean for the nine settled games:

• all_games_structurally_audited: true
• canonical_artifacts_loaded: 9
• continuous_learning_games: 9
• expected_games: 9
• forensic_deep_audit_games: 9
• games_with_starter_comparisons: 9
• structural_audits_completed: 9

The slate should not be called fully artifact-clean because the integrity-revision audit is missing, but it is structurally complete and learning-eligible.

Probability-lineage audit

Materially relevant rows:

• DET@CHW: calibrated 0.5837 → published 0.53; named score-coherence and recency guardrail
• KC@HOU: 0.5606 → 0.529531; named transformations
• LAD@CIN: 0.7106 → 0.56; score coherence plus matchup-recency guardrail
• MIL@PIT: 0.6562 → 0.56; named transformations
• OAK@TB: 0.6502 → 0.58; named transformations
• SD@COL: 0.6972 → 0.54; named transformations

These six material movements have recorded explanations; no material governor bypass is established.

BOS@TEX moved from calibrated 0.5633 to published 0.553827, a delta of only -0.009473. The row’s wording is inconsistent, but this is not a material unexplained delta.

MIN@LAA and PHI@NYM had small deltas and named recency/score-coherence handling.

No probability reversion or overwritten side was identified.

7. Cross-slate persistence

A single slate is not enough to establish most model patterns, but several findings have already escalated and must be treated as established failures.

Escalated findings

simulation_inert_on_slate

• Consecutive-slate count: 11
• Incidence in window: 11/11
• Present now: yes
• Target lever listed: simulation.allow_score
• Parameter actionable: no
• Metric group: run model
• Metrics harmed: team-run MAE and total-run MAE through lack of independent simulation signal
• Direction of fix: confirm the simulation module is running and not silently no-oping
• Required action: code/diagnostic repair, not a forced parameter move

The self-assessment gives the concrete suspected defect: separate target-realization search from independent win-probability simulation; prevent early exit; use a registered batch size such as 200–500 draws or an independent closed-form distribution.

weak_run_model_signal

• Consecutive-slate count: 11
• Incidence in window: 11/11
• Present now: yes
• Target levers listed: training.xgb.n_estimators, training.xgb.max_depth, training.xgb.learning_rate
• Parameter actionable: no, despite listed training levers
• Metrics harmed: team-run MAE and total-run MAE
• Direction of fix: investigate features and target with an isolated training backtest
• Required action: add or validate market no-vig probability where source-labelled, park/weather environment, bullpen rest/fatigue, and platoon-adjusted lineup quality; compare same-fingerprint holdout R²; bump model schema if semantics change

This is an established failure, not single-slate noise.

Non-escalated finding streaks

Metric trends

Each direction is explicit:

• margin_bias: regressing, mean -1.5357
• mean_team_run_error_on_losses: improving, mean 5.5165, with current slate at 3.6
• weighted_calibration_error: improving, mean 0.1781, current 0.1016
• winner_accuracy: regressing, mean 0.5961, current 0.4444

“Improving” calibration and loss-run error do not mean they are good; they mean the recent series is moving in a favorable direction. Current calibration remains materially imperfect.

Top-confidence-pick loss streak

• Reported loss streak: 0
• Per-slate sequence from 20260907 through 20260917:
• miss, hit, hit, hit, miss, miss, hit, miss, hit, hit, hit
• Current top-confidence pick: hit
• Therefore, no persistent top-confidence loss streak is present.

Other structural persistence

• Margin compression appears repeatedly in the raw margin distribution and is reflected in the regressing margin-bias trend, but the formal finding_streaks entry reports only zero consecutive slates. It should be monitored rather than falsely labeled an escalated streak.
• The run model’s weak holdout R² and simulation inertness are the strongest persistent structural signals.
• The player-level spread problem is a current-slate diagnostic, not an escalated cross-slate finding in the supplied streak structure.

8. Adjustments for today

Recommendations are ranked by persistence, scope, expected metric impact, affected games, and regression risk.

1. Repair and independently measure simulation — highest evidence strength

• Pattern: simulation_inert_on_slate, persistent for 11 slates
• Exact registered target: simulation.allow_score
• Parameter direction: do not force a parameter value; repair the code path
• Bounded action:
• Confirm simulation.allow_score is active.
• Separate target-realization search from win-probability simulation.
• Remove early exits from the probability batch.
• Register an independent simulation batch size, initially 200–500 draws.
• Expected metric:
• Increase nonzero simulation contribution and flip-candidate rate
• Improve winner-direction diagnostics
• Potentially improve Brier and winner accuracy, but causal effect is not guaranteed
• Helps:
• All nine games in principle, especially close/moderate-edge games BOS@TEX, MIL@PIT, and MIN@LAA
• Hurts:
• No specific harmed game is established; risk is compute cost and introducing unvalidated probability noise
• Gate:
• Shadow only until independent simulation contribution is measurable.
• Roll back if calibration error or winner accuracy worsens across a predefined rolling sample.

2. Run an isolated run-model feature/target backtest — persistent high-severity issue

• Pattern: weak_run_model_signal, persistent for 11 slates
• Exact registered levers: training.xgb.n_estimators, training.xgb.max_depth, training.xgb.learning_rate
• Parameter direction: abstain from direct nightly parameter movement
• Bounded action:
• Add/test the registered feature-contract candidates: source-labelled no-vig market probability, park/weather environment, bullpen rest/fatigue, and platoon-adjusted lineup quality.
• Compare same-fingerprint holdout R² and MAE.
• Do not promote without improvement over the current R² baseline.
• Expected metric:
• Increase home, away, and total-run R²
• Reduce team-run MAE, total-run MAE, and margin compression
• Helps:
• Broadly all games, with greatest relevance to DET@CHW, MIL@PIT, OAK@TB, PHI@NYM, and SD@COL
• Hurts:
• Potential overfit risk in BOS@TEX and MIN@LAA, where current team-run errors were only 2
• Gate:
• Isolated backtest, schema-version update, then shadow deployment. No direct production tuning from this slate.

3. Bounded confidence-cap reduction for the strongest single-slate driver

• Strongest single-slate driver: confidence overstatement relative to outcome, evidenced by 44.44% winner accuracy, 0.1016 weighted calibration error, and a 50% high-conviction miss rate.
• Exact registered parameter: confidence.moderate_cap
• Direction: decrease
• Small bounded magnitude: reduce by 0.02 from its current registered value
• Expected metric:
• Lower weighted calibration error and Brier score
• Reduce high-conviction miss severity
• No expected direct improvement in raw winner accuracy
• Helps:
• BOS@TEX and MIL@PIT, the moderate-edge losses
• Potentially DET@CHW and PHI@NYM, the lean-side losses
• Hurts:
• Could reduce useful confidence in correct moderate calls such as LAD@CIN and OAK@TB
• Could understate SD@COL, which was a correct lean call
• Gate:
• Apply only as a shadow calibration experiment alongside existing score-variance controls.
• Roll back if rolling Brier or calibration error worsens.

4. Optional shadow test of run-mean weighting

• Exact lever: recent.* / season.* run-mean weighting
• Direction: modestly increase adaptive recent/season run-environment weighting only within a shadow branch; do not change production from this slate alone.
• Expected metric:
• Reduce team-run MAE, total-run MAE, and margin compression
• Helps:
• DET@CHW, LAD@CIN, MIL@PIT, OAK@TB, PHI@NYM, SD@COL
• Hurts:
• BOS@TEX and MIN@LAA, where scores were comparatively close
• This is ranked below the persistent code and run-model actions because the lever is not tied to an escalated finding and the underlying run model has near-zero predictive signal.

Changes to abstain from today

• Do not directly alter global pitcher form weights; the lever tension is 4–4.
• Do not promote context.venue_adjustment_weight globally yet. It is a sensible shadow experiment for Lugo, Harrison, and Gordon, but it is not a registered escalated pattern.
• Do not tune to the individual Nola, Fedde, Singer, or Springs outcomes.
• Do not force a simulation parameter change in place of the required code repair.

9. Bottom line

Known

• The slate went 4–9, or 44.44%, below the walk-forward baseline and below coin flip.
• Four correct winners were also wrong on exact score.
• The score model has near-zero holdout R² and materially compresses winning margins.
• Confidence was overestimated in the 0.50–0.60 buckets; weighted calibration error was 0.1016.
• Five losses were attributable to two wrong-conviction-side calls, two starter-projection failures, and one genuine toss-up variance result.
• All nine game artifacts passed structural QA with no critical, error, or warning findings.
• Six material probability movements were documented through named transformations; no material probability bypass is established.
• Simulation inertness and weak run-model signal are persistent across 11 consecutive slates and are established failures.
• The top-confidence pick did not have a loss streak; it was a hit on the current slate.

Uncertain

• Whether venue-split weighting will improve starter forecasts across slates; this slate provides suggestive cases but balanced global starter evidence.
• Whether widening score variance will improve Brier/calibration without worsening useful correct calls.
• Whether recent/season run-mean weighting can overcome the underlying lack of run-model feature signal.
• The causal impact of an independent simulation distribution until the code path is repaired and measured.
• The missing integrity-revision artifact’s effect on immutable revision verification.

Single safest next action

Repair and instrument the simulation probability path before changing model parameters: separate independent win-probability draws from target-realization search, remove early exit, register the batch size, and run it in shadow with rollback monitoring. This directly addresses an 11-slate established failure, preserves the existing forecast path, and produces the most valuable evidence for the next slate without overfitting today’s nine games.