Some miners' published score is their replayed q_lcb multiplied by a
fixed per-miner constant. This is every miner the replay could verify.
| uid | multiplier | segment | len | confidence | exact | epochs | repo |
|---|
multiplier = published ÷ replayed, on the longest run of ≥5 consecutive epochs flat
to ±0.006. exact = epochs where the replay reproduced the published feed to 1e-4;
that is what proves the fit is right, so a row with exact = 0 is unverified and its
multiplier may be fitting error.
The three miners with Docker-graded ground truth, epoch by epoch.
1.00 means the replay matched the published feed exactly.
Every score on this subnet is reproducible from public data: on-chain commitments give each miner's artifact, its HuggingFace bundle gives the attested proofs, and replaying the evidence accumulator reproduces the published feed exactly — for most miners. For the rest, the published value is the replayed one times a constant.
Those constants land on exact decimals. uid 28 holds 1.03000000 to ±3×10⁻⁷ while its
own q_lcb swings 2.5%. A computed quantity does not do that; a stored one does.
The obvious candidate is headroom_lcb, the documented router scalar that divides by
the achievable gap. It is excluded by the owner's own published reference: at uid 117's trigger epoch
the gap is 0.0000, and headroom_lcb returns None below 0.05.
An independent reimplementation of the frontier reproduces the owner's achievable_gap
on 263 of 263 epochs, so this is not a modelling error. Across 270 references, 84.8%
of epochs have gap exactly zero — the suite is saturated and the router scalar almost never engages.
Also excluded, each with numbers: pooled and code-only cost (ranges overlap), accuracy level,
artifact age, missed epochs, rung diversity, holding a reign seat, eps hysteresis
(0.02 maximum against a 0.198 effect), evidence injection, and newer upstream code.
The form is verified: an exact per-miner multiplication, confirmed on three miners with a clean control. The cause is not. This observes published output, not the code producing it — a configuration table, an undocumented feature, or a mechanism invisible from outside would all look like this. No claim is made about intent.