C5b confirms C5a: pinning the AI client seeds to an earlier run's makes the creation
turn reproducible. Three processes, each drawing its own three seeds, all pinned to
C3's, all producing d59bb9f2... with identical gates (including player 512's target
282, the value no other run has produced) and identical element records.
The only word that differs anywhere across the three is word 3 of list 23's unnamed
Population body. Three runs with byte-identical autosaves cannot differ in a word the
applier reads, so that word is noise -- localised using the pinned pair as an
instrument, which is what a control on a k>1 workload is for.
Two agreeing is a 1/k coincidence; three is 1/k^2.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ARBgSooAfokKUy6wKUKEyZ
Canonical pair turn2->turn3: the complete block set, the three heap payloads no
previous capture could read (route [272], list-10 [1728], the 24-byte Population
body), the three AI client seeds, and both output autosaves -- byte-identical to the
published oracle AND to this lane's own hooks=off control, so the stream and the save
come from the same run and the instrument did not change the turn it recorded.
Creation turn turn1->turn2: three runs. Pinning the AI client seeds to the values an
earlier run observed made a DIFFERENT process reproduce that run's block -- including
the research pick that varies -- and its autosave byte for byte. The workload three
lanes could not reproduce is reproducible given the seeds.
Two corrections to lane L4's list-23 reading (no trailing int; the body is not
turn-dependent) and one to my own list-5 record, the latter found by lane RB while
consuming this capture.
Format: JSON (raw words are ground truth, decoded is a typing) plus lane RB's own .tcb
grammar with the heap payloads filled in, so RB's reader consumes it unchanged.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ARBgSooAfokKUy6wKUKEyZ
