# Luna deep analysis — slate 20261007

> Coverage receipt: **COMPLETE** · 9/8 sections; 4/4 games; 6/6 causes; 7/7 sources

## 1. Evidence receipt and gaps

All **7 `source_manifest` entries** are recorded as loaded. The supplied evidence identifies each by path, purpose, and byte count:

- `prediction review` — `/app/output/reports/prediction_review_20261007.json`, **32,361 bytes**; official outcomes and scoring errors.
- `forensic deep audit` — `/app/output/reports/PREDICTION_SYSTEM_DEEP_AUDIT_20261007.json`, **75,958 bytes**; probability, provenance, starter, and decision contracts.
- `continuous learning` — `/app/output/learning/continuous_learning_daily_20261007.json`, **681,969 bytes**; pipeline-stage quality, calibration, probability lineage, score distribution, and starter comparisons.
- `detailed report` — `/app/output/reports/detailed_20261007.html`, **108,248 bytes**; game and simulation rendering.
- `ultra detailed player audit` — `/app/output/reports/20261007_ultra_detailed_player_audit.html`, **6,962,831 bytes**; player-level prediction trace.
- `structural audit` — `/app/output/reports/audit_report_20261007.html`, **473,259 bytes**; invariant findings.
- `integrity revision audit` — `/app/output/reports/audit_report_20261007_integrity_revision.html`, **1,646,215 bytes**; audit of **14 post-start revision artifacts**.

The manifest says the files were loaded; this analysis cannot independently verify their contents against the paths. All **4 games** listed in the diagnosis are reviewed, matching `games_reviewed: 4`, `expected_games: 4`, and the coverage matrix’s 4/4 counts for structural audits, deep audits, continuous-learning games, canonical artifacts, and starter comparisons.

**Gaps and internal inconsistencies to retain in the record:**

- `TB@NYY` has no joined player-level actuals: the slate feed has 25 rows but none match that game ID. Its player-level causes therefore cannot be assessed from these data.
- The `MIL@SD` probability lineage says `predicted_side: home` and published pick probability `0.505`, while the game record predicts **MIL (away)**, the diagnostic says home probability **0.495**, and the displayed home-minus-away edge is **−0.01**. These point to an away pick. This is an internal probability-side/label inconsistency.
- Several probability records contain distinct `raw_model_pick_probability` and `governor_input_probability` values. The trace records the governor inputs and named transformations, but the meaning and exact ordering of all “raw” fields are not fully explicit. This is a lineage-clarity issue; it does not, by itself, establish an unrecorded calibrated-to-published bypass.
- `probability_reversions` reports **one blend flip at the blend stage**, four sides surviving to publication, no overwrites, and an empty `games` list. The flip cannot be identified from that object.
- The aggregate structural-audit result is **0 critical, 0 error, 0 warning, 4 info**; each game says PASS with 0 critical/error/warning and one informational note. Those summaries do not supply the details of the four aggregate informational items.

## 2. Executive diagnosis

### Winner accuracy

The slate went **3/4 (75%)**, with one miss, TB@NYY. This exceeds the supplied walk-forward accuracy of **0.570149** and historical winner accuracy of **0.600414**, but four games do not establish improved performance. The cross-slate winner-accuracy trend is explicitly **flat**, with mean **0.7381** over the reported series.

A correct winner is not evidence that the score or confidence was good. Three games had the correct winner but substantial run errors.

### Calibration quality

The four-game confidence bucket reports average confidence **0.5228**, hit rate **0.75**, and signed bucket calibration error **−0.2272**, labeled **underconfident** under the stated convention (published confidence minus observed hit rate). Its weighted absolute calibration error is **0.2272**. That is a large single-slate mismatch, but the bucket contains only four games and the causal register explicitly says not to change calibration on this slate alone.

The reported published pick-side confidence values average approximately **0.528**; the bucket’s **0.5228** matches the average of the displayed *home* probabilities (including probabilities below 0.5), not the average pick-side confidence. The signed-error definition is stated, but the confidence convention underlying that bucket is not fully clear. The conclusion is still poor slate-level alignment, not a reliable direction for a global curve.

### Score accuracy

Published team-run MAE is **2.375** and total-run MAE is **3.75** across four games. Team-run absolute errors are **5, 5, 7, and 2**. Predicted margins are compressed: **1, 2, 1, and 1** runs, versus actual margins of **6, 3, 2, and 1**. The holdout run-model R² values are near zero: home **0.002143**, away **0.030936**, total **0.002415**. Exact score outputs therefore have weak demonstrated signal.

### Starter accuracy

All four games have starter comparisons in `starter_lines`, with identity matches true. The starter outcomes were mixed: CLE’s Daniel Espino allowed one earned run in two outs against a 3-ER projection, while TB’s Max Fried allowed four ER against a 2-ER projection. These comparisons do not show a uniform slate-wide starter miss, and the conspicuous Espino result is identified as an outlier/variance event. The diagnosis does not support tuning starter weights from this slate alone.

### Artifact integrity

No supplied game structural audit has critical, error, or warning findings; all four are PASS, and the game diagnostic says the forecast file was clean. Coverage is complete for the four games. These facts argue against a saved-score artifact causing the TB miss. They do **not** resolve the internal `MIL@SD` probability-side contradiction or the missing TB player join. The latter are evidence/contract-quality issues to address in reporting and trace validation.

### Causal issue register: reconciliation of every entry

- **High — `pipeline_winner_instability`**: `historical_ml → variance_applied` reduced winner accuracy by **0.2500 (one hit)**; affected game **MIL@SD**. Keep and expose the exact before/after game picks. Do not treat a later recovery as harmless.
- **High — `single_slate_calibration_instability`**: weighted absolute calibration error **0.2272 over four games**; affects all four. Watch the same buckets over the rolling window before changing calibration. Do not infer a stable calibration curve from this slate.
- **High — `weak_run_model_signal`**: holdout home/away/total R² **0.0021/0.0309/0.0024**; affects all four. Treat exact scores as low-confidence and investigate features/targets; do not infer that positive but tiny R² makes exact scores reliable.
- **Info — `complete_slate_audit_coverage`**: 4/4 structurally audited; all four. Keep the audit receipt. Coverage does not cancel in-game findings.
- **Info — `probability_publication_delta_explained`**: one material movement, with recorded score-coherence and/or recency transformations; TB@NYY is listed. Keep every probability layer visible. A published value above a calibrated value is not a bypass when the movement is recorded.
- **Info — `simulation_inert_on_slate`**: zero flip candidates and zero published flips; all four. Measure simulation contribution over rolling slates. Zero flips alone is not a defect and does not mean score reconciliation did no work.

No critical or error item appears in the causal register. The separate internal probability-label inconsistency is an evidence/contract issue discussed in section 6.

## 3. Every game

“Home-minus-away edge” below is the supplied signed system edge, not a probability distance from 50%. A **0.12** signed home-away edge is moderate, not a near coin flip. Runs and starter lines are the supplied projections and outcomes; no missing player results are inferred.

### CLE@CHW

- **Predicted / actual:** CLE **5**, CHW **4**, predicted CLE; actual CLE **9**, CHW **3**, actual CLE. Correct winner, wrong score.
- **Published confidence / edge / bucket:** Published pick probability **0.535129** for away CLE; published home probability **0.465** in the game diagnostic; home-minus-away edge **−0.0703**, displayed system edge about **0.07**; **lean**.
- **Errors:** Brier **0.216105**; team-run absolute error **5** (CLE off by 4, CHW by 1); total-run bias **−3** (9 projected versus 12 actual).
- **Starter projected → actual:** Daniel Espino, CLE: **3 ER, 12 outs, 6.75 ERA** projected; **1 ER, 2 outs, 13.50 ERA** actual. Sean Newcomb, CHW: **2 ER, 10 outs, 5.40 ERA** projected; **0 ER, 6 outs, 0.00 ERA** actual. Both identities match. Espino’s short outing makes the ERA rate an outlier; it does not mean CLE’s offense failed.
- **Pregame edges:** Season **+0.1605**, recent **+0.030**, pitcher **−0.008**, composite **−0.1018** (home-minus-away). Season-quality adjustment was 0.0 because the quality edge was below threshold; pitcher run factors were **0.9914** for CLE runs off the home pitcher and **0.9834** for CHW runs off the away pitcher.
- **Confidence/recency controls:** Raw pick probability in the trace **0.555841**; governor applied, governed probability **0.5486**, calibration sample **464**, empirical hit rate **0.5819**; recency guardrail applied, no numeric discount factor supplied; starter-experience shrinkage not applied. Lineage separately lists raw model pick probability **0.5846**.
- **Score path and adjustments:** Final forecast was 5–4 CLE; volatility action `no_change`; Savant adjustment applied. The supplied stage table does not identify a CLE-specific winner flip.
- **Player evidence:** Jo Adell **2-for-4, 3 RBI**, run impact **+1.42**; Patrick Bailey **2-for-4**, **+0.80**; Kyle Teel **1-for-4, 1 RBI**, **+0.78**. These are among the deviations the audit labels supported by above-average contact quality. Other listed contributors include Murakami (−1.25) and Grichuk (−0.93); do not treat those individual results as repeatable parameters.
- **Audit and causes:** Structural audit PASS, no listed findings; forecast-file integrity reported clean. The game was a correct-winner/wrong-score result, principally a run/score miss. The starter feed identifies Espino’s poor rate line as variance; the official starter comparison also shows he recorded only two outs. Primary/secondary driver fields are null, so no formal driver label is assigned.

### LAD@ATL

- **Predicted / actual:** LAD **6**, ATL **4**, predicted LAD; actual LAD **4**, ATL **1**, actual LAD. Correct winner, wrong score.
- **Published confidence / edge / bucket:** Published pick probability **0.507177** for away LAD; published home probability about **0.493**; home-minus-away edge **−0.0144**, displayed edge about **0.01**; **toss_up**.
- **Errors:** Brier **0.242875**; team-run absolute error **5** (LAD by 2, ATL by 3); total-run bias **+5** (10 projected versus 5 actual).
- **Starter projected → actual:** Tyler Glasnow, LAD: **2 ER, 16 outs, 3.38 ERA** projected; **1 ER, 14 outs, 1.93 ERA** actual. Tyler Mahle, ATL: **3 ER, 15 outs, 5.40 ERA** projected; **1 ER, 19 outs, 1.42 ERA** actual. Both starters performed better, by ERA, than projected.
- **Pregame edges:** Season **−0.6096**, recent **−0.314**, pitcher **+0.1387**, composite **−0.4686** (home-minus-away). Season-quality adjustment moved the score toward LAD by **−0.256**; pitcher run factors were **0.9252** (LAD) and **1.0639** (ATL).
- **Confidence/recency controls:** Trace raw pick probability/governor input **0.535236**; governed **0.5084**, calibration sample **612**, empirical hit rate **0.5474**; recency guardrail applied, numeric factor absent; starter-experience shrinkage not applied. Lineage’s separate raw-model field is **0.5097**.
- **Score path and adjustments:** Published score 6–4 LAD; `large_savant_run_environment_swing` diagnostic flag; Savant adjustment applied; volatility action `no_change`. The final run total remained five too high.
- **Player evidence:** No player-level breakdown supplied for this game.
- **Audit and causes:** Structural audit PASS; forecast-file integrity reported clean. The winner was right, but both starters beat their ERA projections and the total was over-projected by five. The supplied record does not assign a formal primary/secondary cause.

### MIL@SD

- **Predicted / actual:** MIL **6**, SD **5**, predicted MIL; actual MIL **3**, SD **1**, actual MIL. Correct winner, wrong score.
- **Published confidence / edge / bucket:** Game diagnostic gives home probability **0.495**, away pick probability **0.505**, home-minus-away edge **−0.01**; **toss_up**. Probability lineage instead says predicted side **home**, published pick probability **0.505**. This is the noted side-label contradiction.
- **Errors:** Brier **0.245025**; team-run absolute error **7** (MIL by 3, SD by 4); total-run bias **+7** (11 projected versus 4 actual).
- **Starter projected → actual:** Robert Gasser, MIL: **2 ER, 11 outs, 4.91 ERA** projected; **1 ER, 12 outs, 2.25 ERA** actual. Walker Buehler, SD: **3 ER, 11 outs, 7.36 ERA** projected; **1 ER, 9 outs, 3.00 ERA** actual. Both performed better by ERA than projected.
- **Pregame edges:** Season **−0.723**, recent **+0.334**, pitcher **−0.0447**, composite **−0.2325** (home-minus-away). Season-quality margin adjustment **−0.3037**; run factors **1.0173** for MIL and **0.9726** for SD.
- **Confidence/recency controls:** Trace raw pick/governor input **0.524296**; governed **0.505**, sample **567**, empirical hit rate **0.5485**; no recency guardrail; starter-experience shrinkage not applied. Lineage separately lists raw-model probability **0.5**.
- **Score path and adjustments:** Published score 6–5 MIL; Savant adjustment applied; volatility action `no_change`. Pipeline stages show this is the one game with a winner-direction regression at variance application and later recovery; details appear in section 4.
- **Player evidence:** No player-level breakdown supplied.
- **Audit and causes:** Structural audit PASS; forecast-file integrity reported clean. The three-run total over-projection is consistent with the starter comparisons and the supplied run factors, but there are no player actuals here to allocate the offense/bullpen portions. Formal primary/secondary cause fields are null.

### TB@NYY

- **Predicted / actual:** TB **3**, NYY **4**, predicted NYY; actual TB **4**, NYY **3**, actual TB. **Only winner miss.**
- **Published confidence / edge / bucket:** Published home NYY probability **0.544016**, home-minus-away edge **+0.088** (displayed edge about **0.09**); **lean**. This is a meaningful moderate home edge, not a near-coin-flip edge.
- **Errors:** Brier **0.295953**; team-run absolute error **2** (each side off by 1); total-run bias **0** (7 projected, 7 actual). The total was right while the run allocation and winner were wrong.
- **Starter projected → actual:** Nick Martinez, TB: **2 ER, 13 outs, 4.15 ERA** projected; **2 ER, 11 outs, 4.91 ERA** actual. Max Fried, NYY: **2 ER, 16 outs, 3.38 ERA** projected; **4 ER, 17 outs, 6.35 ERA** actual. Both identities match; Fried’s ER were two above projection, while Martinez matched projected ER.
- **Pregame edges:** Season **+0.1757**, recent **+0.182**, pitcher **−0.0142**, composite **+0.2909** (home-minus-away). The net pregame signals favored NYY despite the near-neutral pitcher edge. Season-quality adjustment was 0.0; run factors were **0.9797** (TB) and **0.9655** (NYY).
- **Confidence/recency controls:** Trace raw pick/governor input **0.521431**; governed/calibrated **0.5665**, sample **393**, empirical hit rate **0.5674**; recency guardrail applied, no numeric factor supplied; starter-experience shrinkage not applied. Lineage separately gives raw-model probability **0.6185**. Score-coherence probability is **0.566481** and published probability **0.544016**; the recorded transformation is score coherence followed by matchup-recency guardrail.
- **Score path and adjustments:** Published score 3–4 NYY; `large_savant_run_environment_swing` flag; Savant adjustment applied; volatility action `no_change`. Prediction put one run on the wrong side.
- **Player evidence:** Not available because none of the 25 feed rows joined to this game ID. No player result should be inferred.
- **Audit and causes:** Structural audit PASS, forecast-file integrity reported clean. Recorded primary driver is **mixed** (“Several errors of similar size”), no secondary driver. Fried’s additional ER are a plausible starter contribution, but the data do not isolate offense, bullpen, or individual-player causes. The score total itself was not the problem; pregame side selection and run allocation were.

## 4. Miss reconstruction

### TB@NYY: earliest wrong-direction evidence and attribution

The earliest explicitly supplied **pregame evidence** already favored the result that lost: season edge **+0.1757**, recent edge **+0.182**, and composite home edge **+0.2909** all favored NYY; pitcher edge was only **−0.0142** for the home side. The confidence trace then reports governed probability **0.5665** for the home pick, and the published home probability remains **0.544016**. The system therefore did not merely miss on a nominal 0.50 selection: its published lean was for NYY at a **0.088** home-away edge.

The probability fields are not fully ordered transparently: the trace governor input is 0.521431, but the governed output is 0.5665; the separate lineage raw-model field is 0.6185. The named calibration/governor, score-coherence, and recency stages are recorded, so the supplied evidence does not justify calling the calibrated-to-published movement a bypass. It does justify checking the mapping and semantics of the multiple raw fields.

Attribution by category:

- **Bad input:** No specific faulty game input is established. Starter identities match. A player-actual join is missing, so player-level diagnostics are incomplete—not evidence that the model’s pregame inputs were wrong.
- **Bad weighting:** Season and recent evidence both pointed home, while the pitcher edge was nearly neutral and away-leaning. The miss is consistent with a side-weighting error, but one game does not establish which edge should have been weighted differently.
- **Calibration:** This was a lean with published home probability 0.544, not a high-conviction pick. It lost, but the four-game bucket was underconfident in aggregate because three of four picks hit. Calibration is a persistent cross-slate concern, not a proven TB-specific cause.
- **Starter error:** Fried allowed **4 ER versus 2 projected**. Martinez allowed the projected **2 ER**. This supports a home-starter contribution; it does not explain the entire loss by itself.
- **Offense/bullpen miss:** Player actuals are absent. The team-score split was off by one run on each side, but no offensive or bullpen attribution is available.
- **Run-environment miss:** Total runs were exactly right (7), so a total-level environment miss is not demonstrated for TB. The allocation across teams was wrong.
- **Irreducible variance:** Still plausible, especially for the starter/side outcome, but the supplied evidence cannot quantify it.

### Pipeline-stage quality across all stages and transitions

All stages are measured against official final scores; positive deltas versus `historical_ml` are regressions.

| Stage | Winner hits | Winner accuracy | Team-run MAE | Total-run MAE | Margin MAE | Change in winner direction |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---|
| `historical_ml` | 3/4 | 0.75 | 1.8898 | 3.7594 | 2.6745 | Baseline |
| `variance_applied` | 2/4 | 0.50 | 1.875 | 3.75 | 2.75 | MIL: MIL → TIE |
| `enhanced_prediction` | 2/4 | 0.50 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | MIL: TIE → SD |
| `kpi_layer` | 2/4 | 0.50 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | No change |
| `embedded_savant_run_environment` | 2/4 | 0.50 | 2.125 | 3.25 | 2.75 | No change |
| `fundamental_edge_target_review` | 3/4 | 0.75 | 2.375 | 3.75 | 2.25 | MIL: SD → MIL |
| `capped_target` | 3/4 | 0.75 | 2.375 | 3.75 | 2.25 | No change |
| `simulation_result` | 3/4 | 0.75 | 2.375 | 3.75 | 2.25 | No change |
| `published_final` | 3/4 | 0.75 | 2.375 | 3.75 | 2.25 | No change |

The **historical → variance** transition regressed winner accuracy by one hit (**−0.25**) on MIL@SD; its team-run MAE improved only **0.0148**. The next stage changed MIL from tie to SD without restoring the correct direction. The embedded-Savant-to-fundamental-review transition later flipped MIL from SD to MIL and restored the slate to 3/4. That recovery does **not** erase the intermediate regression. From fundamental review onward, the score and winner did not change through publication; simulation produced no winner intervention.

Team-run MAE ended **0.4852 worse** than historical ML, despite margin MAE improving **0.4245**. Total-run MAE finished essentially unchanged from the historical baseline (3.75 versus 3.7594). This is not a consistent score-quality improvement.

## 5. Cross-game counterfactuals

Every supplied `lever_tension` entry:

1. **`score.variance_multiplier / score.variance_floor` (widen run distributions), targets Brier/calibration**
   - Helps: **none identified**.
   - Hurts: **none identified**.
   - Evidence: **0 helped vs 0 hurt**. There were no high-conviction games and no high-raw cluster. This slate does not demonstrate that widening distributions would improve particular games. A bounded shadow test is defensible only because of the persistent calibration pattern, not because this entry shows a per-game win.

2. **`player.pitcher.v4` form weights / `player.pitcher_prior_games`, targets starter ER/outs MAE**
   - Helps: **none identified**.
   - Hurts: **none identified**.
   - Evidence: **0 helped vs 0 hurt**. CLE’s Espino outlier and TB’s Fried miss pull in different directions; neither establishes a systematic starter-weight change.

3. **`recent.* / season.*` run-mean weighting**
   - Helps: **CLE@CHW** (team runs off by 5), **LAD@ATL** (off by 5), **MIL@SD** (off by 7).
   - Hurts: **TB@NYY** (team runs already close, off by 2; reweighting risks disturbing it).
   - Evidence: **3 helped vs 1 hurt** on run error. This supports testing the run-mean weighting against run-error metrics, but not a claimed winner-accuracy improvement or an unqualified live change; the data do not specify a direction or which sub-weight to alter.

**Tempting one-game fixes to reject:**

- Do not change pitcher weights solely to prevent a repeat of Espino’s two-out outing or Fried’s four ER. The observed starter results are mixed, and the cross-game pitcher tension shows no demonstrated benefit.
- Do not increase TB’s home-confidence adjustment because its total was correct; the home side lost and the player feed is missing.
- Do not use CLE’s Adell or Teel game as a one-game hitter-weight calibration. The audit says their deviations have supporting contact quality, but one slate and a 15-hitter sample do not establish a stable adjustment.
- Do not interpret the “3 helped/1 hurt” run-mean tension as evidence to change winner selection; its direct evidence is team-run error.

## 6. Data and contract defects

### Audit findings and severity counts

- **Per-game structural audits:** all four games have status **PASS**, risk score **0**, and no listed findings. Each reports **0 critical, 0 error, 0 warning**, **108 good**, and **1 info**.
- **Aggregate structural audit summary:** **0 critical, 0 error, 0 info, 0 warning** in its separate summary object, whereas the per-game summaries sum to four informational notes. This is a reporting-summary discrepancy, not proof of an invariant failure.
- **Coverage matrix:** all reported structural/deep/learning/starter/canonical counts are **4/4** and `all_games_structurally_audited: true`. It is appropriate to say game-level structural coverage is complete, but not that every diagnostic is complete: TB player-level actuals do not join.
- **Source-integrity statements:** all four game diagnostics say forecast-file integrity is clean; the integrity revision audit says 14 revision artifacts were audited, but no finding detail is supplied.
- **Causal register findings:** the three high and three info items are reproduced in section 2; none is a structural critical/error finding.

### Specific contract and data issues

1. **MIL probability-side label inconsistency:** lineage says home side/pick 0.505; game score, displayed edge, and diagnostic home probability imply away MIL is the pick at 0.505. Treat as an evidence/contract error requiring label validation. The contradictory label should not be silently used in calibration summaries.
2. **Probability-field semantics:** lineage’s separate raw-model probability differs from the governor input/trace raw pick value for all four games. The named stages explain the calibrated/governed and calibrated-to-published changes at a high level, but the raw-field definitions and transition ordering should be explicit.
3. **`probability_reversions` incomplete event identification:** one blend-stage flip is reported, but `games` is empty. No game can be named from this field, so it is not possible to check that flip against the per-game trace.
4. **TB player join gap:** no per-player actuals joined for TB@NYY. This is a forensic coverage gap for player causality, not a demonstrated score artifact defect.
5. **Calibration bucket convention:** the reported average **0.5228** matches the mean of the displayed home probabilities, while the prediction outcomes are pick-side outcomes. Because the bucket’s confidence convention is not fully described and MIL is mislabeled, its summary should be interpreted cautiously.

### Complete pick-side probability lineage

Values below preserve the supplied lineage. “Governor input” corresponds to the trace’s raw pick probability; the separate raw-model field is also shown so the distinction is visible.

| Game | Separate raw model | Governor input → output / calibrated | Score coherence → published | Recency / recorded transformation |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| CLE@CHW | 0.5846 | 0.555841 → 0.5486 / 0.5486 | 0.548621 → **0.535129** | Guardrail applied; named score coherence then matchup-recency |
| LAD@ATL | 0.5097 | 0.535236 → 0.5084 / 0.5084 | 0.508443 → **0.507177** | Guardrail applied; published value recorded as matching calibrated/governed value |
| MIL@SD | 0.5000 | 0.524296 → 0.505 / 0.505 | 0.505 → **0.505** | No guardrail; published equals calibrated. **Side label conflicts with game record.** |
| TB@NYY | 0.6185 | 0.521431 → 0.5665 / 0.5665 | 0.566481 → **0.544016** | Guardrail applied; named score coherence then matchup-recency |

All four lineage entries say `unexplained_material_delta: false`. Calibrated-to-published movements are recorded as score-coherence and/or recency transformations; the TB material movement is therefore **not** called a bypass. The audit register specifically says TB’s published value being above a calibrated one is not a governor bypass when the recorded transformations explain it. The raw-model/governor-input distinction and the absent numeric recency factors remain trace-clarity issues, not established unrecorded bypasses.

## 7. Cross-slate persistence

### Cross-slate findings and escalation status

The report includes **10 prior slates** and an 11-slate trend window. Finding streaks:

| Finding | Consecutive slates | Present now? | Persistence interpretation |
|---|---:|---|---|
| `pipeline_winner_instability` | **1** | Yes | Current-slate regression; not an established multi-slate streak. |
| `score_margin_compression` | **0** | No | Incidence in window is 4, but it is not current and has no present streak. |
| `simulation_inert_on_slate` | **11** | Yes | Escalated, established failure pattern; do not dismiss as single-slate noise. |
| `single_slate_calibration_instability` | **5** | Yes | Escalated persistent calibration pattern. |
| `weak_run_model_signal` | **5** | Yes | Escalated persistent near-zero run-signal pattern. |

For **every escalated finding**:

- **`simulation_inert_on_slate` — 11 consecutive, 11 incidences; targets `simulation.allow_score`; metrics team-run MAE and total-run MAE.** Direction: ensure the simulation module is actually producing an independent, informative distribution rather than a silent no-op. The self-assessment identifies the shared target-search draws and early exit as the root cause; fix/diagnose the simulation path, not a forced parameter change.
- **`single_slate_calibration_instability` — 5 consecutive, 8 incidences; targets `confidence.empirical_max_weight`, `confidence.base_cap`, `confidence.moderate_cap`; metrics Brier and calibration error.** Direction: increase empirical shrinkage via a bounded shadow experiment, then judge on rolling Brier/calibration.
- **`weak_run_model_signal` — 5 consecutive, 9 incidences; lists `training.xgb.n_estimators`, `training.xgb.max_depth`, and `training.xgb.learning_rate`, but is marked not parameter-actionable.** The self-assessment says no nightly knob can supply missing run signal; investigate features/target with an isolated training backtest. Do not turn those listed training controls into an unsupported tuning change.

The self-assessment separately records **`run_model_near_zero_signal`**, with total/home/away R² **0.002415/0.002143/0.030936**, as an operator action. This agrees with the escalated weak-run-signal finding rather than adding a reason for a nightly parameter adjustment.

### Structural cross-slate evidence

- **Margin distribution:** actual margins were **1, 2, 3, 6**; predicted margins were **1, 1, 1, 2**. All four predicted margins were ≤2; one actual margin was ≥4. CLE@CHW had signed margin error **−5** in that block; other listed errors were −1, −1, 0. This is evidence of slate-level compression, but `score_margin_compression` is not current and has a zero consecutive streak.
- **Calibration monitoring:** four settled games; confidence bucket average **0.5228**, observed hit rate **0.75**, weighted absolute calibration error **0.2272**. This is current-slate evidence within a five-slate escalation.
- **High-raw cluster:** threshold **0.65**, but **0 games, 0 hits**. There is no high-raw-cluster performance evidence on this slate.
- **Simulation control:** four observed games, **0 flip candidates**, **0 published flips**, priority P2, `diagnostic_only_without_independent_support`. This aligns with the 11-slate escalation.
- **Pipeline transitions:** the historical-to-variance MIL regression is current. Later recovery does not remove that intermediate-direction defect.
- **Validation:** 2,415 historical-temporal rows; winner accuracy **0.600414**, walk-forward accuracy **0.570149**, Brier **0.239378**, walk-forward Brier **0.242204**. These are broader baselines, not evidence that run scores are reliable.

### Metric trends and top-confidence-pick streak

The trend directions are explicitly:

- **Margin bias: regressing**, mean **−1.619**.
- **Mean team-run error on losses: improving**, mean **2.86**.
- **Weighted calibration error: improving**, mean **0.3854**; despite the direction, its current value is **0.2272** and the finding has escalated.
- **Winner accuracy: flat**, mean **0.7381**.

The **top-confidence-pick loss streak is 1**: the 20261005 top pick missed, 20261006 hit, and 20261007 missed. The current slate’s top-confidence pick is therefore a loss but does not extend a consecutive loss streak from 20261005 because a hit intervened. Two dates in the supplied sequence are blank/unknown and should not be treated as results.

## 8. Adjustments for today

These are bounded proposals for shadow evaluation, not live changes. Persistence is ranked ahead of single-slate evidence. No promotion is recommended from this diagnosis alone.

1. **Persistent calibration instability — shadow `confidence.empirical_max_weight` upward by +0.02 absolute.**
   - **Reason/rank:** five consecutive slates, 8 incidences; strongest parameter-actionable persistent pattern. The registered direction is increased empirical shrinkage.
   - **Expected metrics:** lower rolling Brier and lower absolute calibration error; evaluate by confidence bucket and overall, not this four-game result alone.
   - **Games/tension:** no named confidence lever tension lists game-level help/harm. TB@NYY is the current miss with a lean home probability of 0.544 and should be monitored for overconfidence regressions; three of four picks hit, so do not frame this as evidence to indiscriminately suppress all confidence.
   - **Risk/gate:** small shadow-only test with rolling calibration and Brier rollback monitoring. Do not infer that the change will fix TB specifically.

2. **Persistent simulation inertness — code/diagnostic action, not a parameter move.**
   - **Registered target:** `simulation.allow_score` is listed, but the finding is marked `param_actionable: false`; the self-assessment gives a code-level root cause.
   - **Action:** inspect the simulation path so score-target realization and win-probability estimation use an independent, unsteered distribution that does not early-exit; record its contribution before/after. The supplied action describes an independent batch or closed-form run-difference distribution and a registered batch-size control.
   - **Expected metrics:** first establish a non-vacuous distribution and measure team-run/total-run MAE contribution across rolling slates; do not promise a winner-accuracy gain from this slate.
   - **Games/tension:** zero flip candidates across the four games; no per-game help or harm is identified in lever tension.
   - **Risk/rank:** persistent 11-slate evidence warrants priority diagnostic/code work. Do not force `simulation.allow_score` as a tuning change in place of fixing the no-op behavior.

3. **Persistent weak run signal — isolated feature/target backtest, not a nightly parameter change.**
   - **Registered levers listed:** `training.xgb.n_estimators`, `training.xgb.max_depth`, `training.xgb.learning_rate`; finding is explicitly not parameter-actionable. The supplied action calls for a manual isolated training backtest.
   - **Action:** test the shared feature contract and target with the supplied candidate feature families—source-labelled no-vig market probabilities when available, park/weather, bullpen rest/fatigue, and platoon-adjusted lineup quality—then compare same-fingerprint holdout R²; bump the model schema version if semantics change.
   - **Expected metrics:** improve holdout run-target R² and out-of-sample team-/total-run error without degrading winner or calibration measures.
   - **Games/tension:** CLE, LAD, and MIL have the largest team-run errors and are listed as helped by run-mean reweighting; TB is the close-score harm case. The persistent code/feature diagnosis applies slate-wide; no single listed feature is proven by these four games.
   - **Risk/rank:** high scope and operator effort, but the persistent near-zero R² is stronger evidence than any one-game score adjustment. No XGBoost knob-only shadow is recommended absent an isolated feature/target comparison.

4. **Strongest single-slate structural driver — shadow `score.variance_multiplier` upward by 2% relative to its current value.**
   - **Reason/rank:** every predicted margin was at most two runs while one actual margin was six; this is a concrete current-slate compression signal. It is weaker than the persistent findings, and the associated cross-slate streak is currently zero.
   - **Expected metrics:** test whether score-distribution calibration/Brier improves; do **not** expect a direct improvement in run-mean MAE, since widening variance does not correct a biased mean.
   - **Games/tension:** the variance lever’s tension record identifies **no helped and no hurt games**, so no game-specific benefit is claimed. Monitor the close TB@NYY score and the three correct-winner/wrong-score games for regressions.
   - **Risk/gate:** shadow only; roll back if rolling Brier/calibration or score-distribution checks deteriorate. The supplied evidence does not support a live change or a larger adjustment.

No `recent.* / season.*` run-mean change is recommended today: its slate tension is 3 helped versus 1 hurt, but the entry does not specify the direction or sub-weight, and its clearest evidence concerns run errors rather than winners. No pitcher-weight change is recommended from this mixed slate.

## 9. Bottom line

Known: the slate finished **3/4**, with three correct winners but materially inaccurate scores; TB@NYY was the only winner miss, despite a moderate **0.088** published home edge. The pipeline temporarily moved MIL in the wrong winner direction at variance application before later recovering. Run-model holdout signal is near zero, calibration instability and simulation inertness are persistent escalations, and the saved forecast artifacts passed the reported game-level structural checks.

Uncertain: the precise TB offensive/bullpen/player contribution, the causal source of the wrong team-run allocation, the interpretation of every raw probability field, and whether a variance change would improve outcomes. TB player actuals are missing; MIL probability-side lineage is internally inconsistent.

**Safest next action for the very next slate:** preserve the full probability and stage trace, add a contract check that rejects side/probability-label contradictions such as MIL@SD, and keep any calibration change in a bounded shadow experiment with rolling Brier/calibration monitoring. This addresses a concrete evidence-integrity risk without pretending that one slate identifies a winning model adjustment.