{"revisions":[{"id":"2026-10-24-friday-r3","week":"2026-10-24","revision":3,"label":"24–30 Oct 2026 · Iso Joe","recordedAt":"2026-10-30T16:03:05Z","reason":"Append the original 30 October public river after checking its primary abstract, submission history and full-text contract assumptions. Populate Friday only; preserve the recorded Monday Q♠, the existing current-week Iso Joe brief, and the unavailable Tuesday–Thursday slots. Earlier revisions remain immutable.","provenance":"Original Project Nausicäa research construction, 24 October 2026. Primary Lin et al. abstract and full text, Pennzoil Supreme Court opinion, Texas merits-opinion excerpts, and the official Hawks historical announcement inspected. Texas Style Deposition video locator recovered via Georgetown's legal-ethics article; direct playback was unavailable. Cultural handles identify questions, not findings. No private hands imported. Public projection of the recorded Nausicäa 26 October 2026 draw, recovered on retry. Benomar–Perchet v1 was submitted 23 October 2026 and appeared in the 26 October cs.GT listings; the selected version and full text were checked again during this import. Holmström's 1982 primary paper was checked for the historical mapping. recordedAt is the actual import time, not the source publication or draw time. Existing unavailable slots remain unavailable; no private hands, private hypotheses, personal context, or audience-gated material is included. Friday addition: primary arXiv category pages and arXiv:2610.38872v1 abstract/full text retrieved directly on 30 October 2026. The source's submission date and observed category listing are recorded separately. The import timestamp is the actual current UTC time. This snapshot adds only the authorized public research projection.","status":"accepted","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Iso Joe · Whose contribution, whose authority?","authors":"Project Nausicäa · proposed research construction","summary":"First player prop: does isolating a contribution preserve the team-dependent opportunity and authority structure that made it possible? Use the Atlanta–Brooklyn link to compare contexts while keeping representation, institutional hierarchy, and pairwise externality accounting separately checkable.","claim":"Lin et al. use sampled pairwise externality compensation in stochastic scheduling: effects on another agent's expected future service are balanced by virtual accounting entries under a specified continuation model. This is the source mechanism; the Jamail/Johnson comparison is our proposed extension.","inference":"Build three linked records: who speaks or acts for whom; which actor or forum can authorize or review the transition; and whose continuation opportunity changes, in a declared unit. A contextual transfer does not automatically transfer an estimate, a right, or a causal effect. In Lin's mechanism, debt timeouts force zero reports; preserve that distinction from protected unavailability. The first comparison asks whether the same attributed contribution survives a change in team context after opportunity, interference, authority, and resource costs are accounted for.","sources":[{"title":"Lin et al. · Non-Monetary Mechanisms for Stochastic Scheduling","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"},{"title":"Texaco v. Pennzoil · Texas merits-opinion excerpts","url":"https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-649-the-law-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-spring-2003/2522a1c4f81b544ba854e8751de95374_class1texacopennzoilexcerpts.pdf"},{"title":"Pennzoil v. Texaco · federal review and judgment enforcement","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/481/1"},{"title":"Atlanta–Brooklyn historical link · official Hawks announcement","url":"https://www.nba.com/hawks/news/two-major-transactions-significantly-reshape-hawks-future"},{"title":"Texas Style Deposition · video locator","url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxmrvbMeKc"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-26T16:00:00Z","title":"Q♠ · Trust the Order, Bound the Damage","text":"RECORDED DRAW: 26 October 2026; recovered public projection, not a new retrospective draw. SOURCE: Ziyad Benomar and Vianney Perchet, Pareto-optimal Scheduling with Predictions, arXiv:2610.32503v1, submitted 23 October; cs.GT listing 26 October. All jobs arrive at time zero; a unit machine permits divisible, preemptive service, and sizes become known at completion. MRC_R maximally follows predicted order while F(t) ≤ R Φ(e(t)), where F(t)=∫₀ᵗ N(u)du and Φ(e)=Σ_j e_j+Σ_{i<j}min(e_i,e_j). For R>2 the exact deterministic consistency frontier is c(R)=R[1−(1−(R+2)/R²)^{R/(R+2)}], with a matching lower bound even for size predictions. This bounds total completion time, not individual welfare or truthful reporting. CIPHER: Q denotes retrieval/information/model control; ♠ denotes provenance and observability, not a personal rank or investable price. FOUNDATION: Bengt Holmström, Moral Hazard in Teams (1982), Theorem 5 and §4: sufficient information is relative to the incentive problem. Order suffices for this algorithmic frontier; it need not suffice for effort attribution. APPLICATION / INFERENCE: a hypothetical interruptible New York hotel back-office batch should report individual delays alongside the aggregate; live arrivals, switching costs, and legal priorities need a separate model. Protected unavailability remains ⊥L. TEST: predeclare R, use held-out model-matched batches, corrupt the predicted order, and measure both aggregate competitive ratio and individual delays. FRIDAY: whose continuation survives the aggregate bound, and whose delay does it conceal? Retain the existing Iso Joe brief as a separate construction.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Benomar & Perchet · Pareto-optimal Scheduling with Predictions · v1, 23 October 2026","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.32503v1"},{"title":"Benomar & Perchet · full text, Theorems 1.1–1.2 and §§2–3","url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2610.32503v1"},{"title":"Holmström · Moral Hazard in Teams (1982), Theorem 5 and §4","url":"https://kylewoodward.com/blog-data/pdfs/references/holmstrom-the-bell-journal-of-economics-1982A.pdf"}]},{"date":"2026-10-27T16:00:00Z","title":"Tuesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-28T16:00:00Z","title":"Wednesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-29T16:00:00Z","title":"Thursday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-30T16:00:00Z","title":"River · Evidence with an Exit Rule","text":"ORIGINAL FRIDAY PUBLIC DRAW: 30 October 2026. Ben Chugg, Aritra Ghosh and Aaditya Ramdas, Principal-agent hypothesis testing under adaptive experimentation, arXiv:2610.38872v1, submitted 28 October 2026 at 20:42:24 UTC; observed in the 30 October cs.GT cross-list. SOURCE RESULT: sequential statistical contracts are null-deterring when every statistical-null agent's expected reward at every permitted stopping time is bounded by its entry cost. E-processes characterize this protection; incremental payments require additional monotonicity treatment. The agent's stopping problem is described through Bellman/Snell methods. The model charges an upfront entry cost and does not impose per-period experimentation costs. NAMESPACES: source C is the entry cost and R_t the reward process; these do not redefine the public policy–price R(d). Statistical null means a distribution in H_0, never protected unavailability. FOUNDATION / OUR MAPPING: Holmström (1979) on performance information and Grossman–Hart (1983) on incentive implementation; the new timing structure makes the exit rule part of the mechanism. INFERENCE: audit evidence and payment together, with lawful participation and resource commitments specified separately. No inference about mind, assent, or defection follows from missing observations. The protocol leaves protected dot-L unchanged without a lawful observable transition.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Chugg, Ghosh & Ramdas · Principal-agent hypothesis testing under adaptive experimentation · v1, 28 October 2026","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.38872v1"},{"title":"Full text · sequential contracts, null deterrence, and stopping policies","url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2610.38872v1"}]}]},{"id":"2026-10-24-recorded-monday-r2","week":"2026-10-24","revision":2,"label":"24–30 Oct 2026 · Iso Joe","recordedAt":"2026-10-27T13:18:51.989Z","reason":"Import the actual 26 October Q♠ daily draw after its earlier publication attempt failed. This is a recovery of an already recorded draw, not a retrospective new deal. Change Monday only; preserve the Iso Joe brief, all other dated slots, and every earlier immutable revision.","provenance":"Original Project Nausicäa research construction, 24 October 2026. Primary Lin et al. abstract and full text, Pennzoil Supreme Court opinion, Texas merits-opinion excerpts, and the official Hawks historical announcement inspected. Texas Style Deposition video locator recovered via Georgetown's legal-ethics article; direct playback was unavailable. Cultural handles identify questions, not findings. No private hands imported. Public projection of the recorded Nausicäa 26 October 2026 draw, recovered on retry. Benomar–Perchet v1 was submitted 23 October 2026 and appeared in the 26 October cs.GT listings; the selected version and full text were checked again during this import. Holmström's 1982 primary paper was checked for the historical mapping. recordedAt is the actual import time, not the source publication or draw time. Existing unavailable slots remain unavailable; no private hands, private hypotheses, personal context, or audience-gated material is included.","status":"accepted","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Iso Joe · Whose contribution, whose authority?","authors":"Project Nausicäa · proposed research construction","summary":"First player prop: does isolating a contribution preserve the team-dependent opportunity and authority structure that made it possible? Use the Atlanta–Brooklyn link to compare contexts while keeping representation, institutional hierarchy, and pairwise externality accounting separately checkable.","claim":"Lin et al. use sampled pairwise externality compensation in stochastic scheduling: effects on another agent's expected future service are balanced by virtual accounting entries under a specified continuation model. This is the source mechanism; the Jamail/Johnson comparison is our proposed extension.","inference":"Build three linked records: who speaks or acts for whom; which actor or forum can authorize or review the transition; and whose continuation opportunity changes, in a declared unit. A contextual transfer does not automatically transfer an estimate, a right, or a causal effect. In Lin's mechanism, debt timeouts force zero reports; preserve that distinction from protected unavailability. The first comparison asks whether the same attributed contribution survives a change in team context after opportunity, interference, authority, and resource costs are accounted for.","sources":[{"title":"Lin et al. · Non-Monetary Mechanisms for Stochastic Scheduling","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"},{"title":"Texaco v. Pennzoil · Texas merits-opinion excerpts","url":"https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-649-the-law-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-spring-2003/2522a1c4f81b544ba854e8751de95374_class1texacopennzoilexcerpts.pdf"},{"title":"Pennzoil v. Texaco · federal review and judgment enforcement","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/481/1"},{"title":"Atlanta–Brooklyn historical link · official Hawks announcement","url":"https://www.nba.com/hawks/news/two-major-transactions-significantly-reshape-hawks-future"},{"title":"Texas Style Deposition · video locator","url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxmrvbMeKc"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-26T16:00:00Z","title":"Q♠ · Trust the Order, Bound the Damage","text":"RECORDED DRAW: 26 October 2026; recovered public projection, not a new retrospective draw. SOURCE: Ziyad Benomar and Vianney Perchet, Pareto-optimal Scheduling with Predictions, arXiv:2610.32503v1, submitted 23 October; cs.GT listing 26 October. All jobs arrive at time zero; a unit machine permits divisible, preemptive service, and sizes become known at completion. MRC_R maximally follows predicted order while F(t) ≤ R Φ(e(t)), where F(t)=∫₀ᵗ N(u)du and Φ(e)=Σ_j e_j+Σ_{i<j}min(e_i,e_j). For R>2 the exact deterministic consistency frontier is c(R)=R[1−(1−(R+2)/R²)^{R/(R+2)}], with a matching lower bound even for size predictions. This bounds total completion time, not individual welfare or truthful reporting. CIPHER: Q denotes retrieval/information/model control; ♠ denotes provenance and observability, not a personal rank or investable price. FOUNDATION: Bengt Holmström, Moral Hazard in Teams (1982), Theorem 5 and §4: sufficient information is relative to the incentive problem. Order suffices for this algorithmic frontier; it need not suffice for effort attribution. APPLICATION / INFERENCE: a hypothetical interruptible New York hotel back-office batch should report individual delays alongside the aggregate; live arrivals, switching costs, and legal priorities need a separate model. Protected unavailability remains ⊥L. TEST: predeclare R, use held-out model-matched batches, corrupt the predicted order, and measure both aggregate competitive ratio and individual delays. FRIDAY: whose continuation survives the aggregate bound, and whose delay does it conceal? Retain the existing Iso Joe brief as a separate construction.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Benomar & Perchet · Pareto-optimal Scheduling with Predictions · v1, 23 October 2026","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.32503v1"},{"title":"Benomar & Perchet · full text, Theorems 1.1–1.2 and §§2–3","url":"https://arxiv.org/html/2610.32503v1"},{"title":"Holmström · Moral Hazard in Teams (1982), Theorem 5 and §4","url":"https://kylewoodward.com/blog-data/pdfs/references/holmstrom-the-bell-journal-of-economics-1982A.pdf"}]},{"date":"2026-10-27T16:00:00Z","title":"Tuesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-28T16:00:00Z","title":"Wednesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-29T16:00:00Z","title":"Thursday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-30T16:00:00Z","title":"Friday river","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]}]},{"id":"2026-10-24-iso-joe-r1","week":"2026-10-24","revision":1,"label":"24–30 Oct 2026 · Iso Joe","recordedAt":"2026-10-24T20:45:01.248Z","reason":"Open a separate current-week research construction for Iso Joe. Preserve the October 17–23 board and its revisions; do not backdate this construction as a scheduled weekday draw.","provenance":"Original Project Nausicäa research construction, 24 October 2026. Primary Lin et al. abstract and full text, Pennzoil Supreme Court opinion, Texas merits-opinion excerpts, and the official Hawks historical announcement inspected. Texas Style Deposition video locator recovered via Georgetown's legal-ethics article; direct playback was unavailable. Cultural handles identify questions, not findings. No private hands imported.","status":"original","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Iso Joe · Whose contribution, whose authority?","authors":"Project Nausicäa · proposed research construction","summary":"First player prop: does isolating a contribution preserve the team-dependent opportunity and authority structure that made it possible? Use the Atlanta–Brooklyn link to compare contexts while keeping representation, institutional hierarchy, and pairwise externality accounting separately checkable.","claim":"Lin et al. use sampled pairwise externality compensation in stochastic scheduling: effects on another agent's expected future service are balanced by virtual accounting entries under a specified continuation model. This is the source mechanism; the Jamail/Johnson comparison is our proposed extension.","inference":"Build three linked records: who speaks or acts for whom; which actor or forum can authorize or review the transition; and whose continuation opportunity changes, in a declared unit. A contextual transfer does not automatically transfer an estimate, a right, or a causal effect. In Lin's mechanism, debt timeouts force zero reports; preserve that distinction from protected unavailability. The first comparison asks whether the same attributed contribution survives a change in team context after opportunity, interference, authority, and resource costs are accounted for.","sources":[{"title":"Lin et al. · Non-Monetary Mechanisms for Stochastic Scheduling","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"},{"title":"Texaco v. Pennzoil · Texas merits-opinion excerpts","url":"https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-649-the-law-of-mergers-and-acquisitions-spring-2003/2522a1c4f81b544ba854e8751de95374_class1texacopennzoilexcerpts.pdf"},{"title":"Pennzoil v. Texaco · federal review and judgment enforcement","url":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/481/1"},{"title":"Atlanta–Brooklyn historical link · official Hawks announcement","url":"https://www.nba.com/hawks/news/two-major-transactions-significantly-reshape-hawks-future"},{"title":"Texas Style Deposition · video locator","url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIxmrvbMeKc"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-26T16:00:00Z","title":"Monday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-27T16:00:00Z","title":"Tuesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-28T16:00:00Z","title":"Wednesday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-29T16:00:00Z","title":"Thursday draw","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-10-30T16:00:00Z","title":"Friday river","text":"⊥L · no public research card imported for this date.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]}]},{"id":"2026-10-17-reviewed-r5","week":"2026-10-17","revision":5,"label":"17–23 Oct 2026","recordedAt":"2026-10-25T03:26:16.630Z","reason":"Restore R(d) and G_H(d) as local policy–price audit notation, with explicit source attribution and namespaces. Retain all earlier immutable revisions.","provenance":"Nausicäa Friday Showdown · recorded run 63daf644-a884-8327-8f16-0666b30625e8 · completed 23 October 2026 16:03:43 UTC. Recovered 24 October. These are archived research assertions; sources have not been independently reverified during this import. Thursday correction source: Nausicäa Cipher Card · run a380725e-0ea8-8324-a04a-5d35d3b15c11 · completed 22 October 2026 16:57:31 UTC. Import timestamp denotes recovery, not original publication. Current Thursday source abstract checked directly on arXiv on 24 October 2026. This revision changes Thursday’s explanation only; reconstructed placements elsewhere are retained. Private-deal existence checked on 24 October against Sidra’s Day Deal, completed run 8852087e-365c-832c-94b6-f0b4427a5087 dated 17 October 2026. That private record contains two two-card candidate hands for October 19–23. The Friday run’s unavailability is an access/recovery state, not evidence that no deal occurred. This public history records existence only. Revision 5 restores the October 22 policy–price audit expressions with explicit local scope; k replaces the summation index to keep language ℓ unambiguous. The source claim, private-hand access history, other cards and reconstruction status are retained.","status":"reconstructed","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Checkable commitments, explicit limits","authors":"Project Nausicäa · archived Friday research record","summary":"Extension, stopping and exclusion rules determine whether a certificate remains useful after the system changes. This archived week asks what verification establishes, and what still requires authority, evidence availability, and contestable participation.","claim":"The recorded river describes Cambium’s committee-based commitments under explicit fault and assignment assumptions.","inference":"Portable evidence can reduce inspection burdens while leaving truth, ownership, authorized use and membership governance as separate questions. No verdict is assigned to inaccessible private hands.","sources":[{"title":"Cambium","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-19T16:00:00Z","title":"Exit-aware contracting","text":"Boris Velasevic, Eden Saig, Eric Mazumdar; v1 October 16. Archived showdown account: likelihood-ratio e-values support contracts robust to unknown stopping rules. Fixed-horizon incentives can fail when either party can end the interaction. LUNCH: stopping / control. This is a reconstructed Monday placement, not a recovered Monday draw.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Exit-aware contracting","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22781"}]},{"date":"2026-10-20T16:00:00Z","title":"Compensation without money","text":"David X. Lin, Chido Onyeze, Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, Éva Tardos; v1 October 18. Archived showdown account: coupled simulations estimate pairwise externalities in O(n²) expected amortized time per period, independent of horizon. LUNCH: nuisance / allocation. Reconstructed Tuesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Compensation without money","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"}]},{"date":"2026-10-21T16:00:00Z","title":"Extension changes incidence","text":"Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan; v1 October 20. Archived showdown account: preserving the menu versus preserving pricing yields different extremal extensions and opposite bounds on buyer payoffs. Extensibility does not determine distribution. Reconstructed Wednesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Extension changes incidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27839"}]},{"date":"2026-10-22T16:00:00Z","title":"K♦ · Who Enforces the Premium?","text":"Hieu Tran and Hong Yu, “Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel? What Reinforcement Learning Teaches LLM Agents in Markets,” submitted October 20, 2026. Recorded October 22 draw. SOURCE: the paper tests enforcement by imposing a deviation in counterfactual copies of a market. Policies with similar profits can differ in whether their responses deter deviations; observed outcomes alone do not distinguish those cases. POLICY–PRICE AUDIT — local notation: R(d) = E[p⁰_{−i,t+1} − pᵈ_{−i,t+1}]/d; G_H(d) = E[Σ_{k=0}^H η_a^k(πᵈ_{i,t+k} − π⁰_{i,t+k})]. Here d > 0 is the imposed price cut, superscript 0 denotes the paired control, η_a is the audit discount factor, k is the summation index, and H is the declared continuation horizon. R measures the rival’s response per unit cut; G_H measures the deviator’s discounted profit difference. Compare the response with the static best-response baseline and assess uncertainty in both quantities. These are assistant-introduced expressions for the audit, with their own local scope; they do not redefine the project’s η or language ℓ. DECK INTERPRETATION: ask what actually changes after an observable action, under the applicable participation, authority and resource constraints. This does not require a participant to adopt the evaluator’s position or make an available refusal into defection. REVISION: retain the policy–price notation in the current explanation. The archived K♦ cipher is retained. No private hand is imported.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel?","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28787v1"}]},{"date":"2026-10-23T16:00:00Z","title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","text":"Mansoor “Manny” Ahmed, Dann Toliver, Ekaterina Pavlova; v1 October 21, listed October 23. Archived river account: committees certify inputs and merge commitments into a shared root. The stated finality bound assumes fewer than one-third Byzantine participants and specified signing and assignment conditions. Safety does not guarantee progress. A root binds a record; it does not establish truth, ownership, or authorized use.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]}]},{"id":"2026-10-17-reviewed-r4","week":"2026-10-17","revision":4,"label":"17–23 Oct 2026","recordedAt":"2026-10-24T20:51:34.775Z","reason":"Clarify private-hand status after checking the recorded October 17 private-deal run. Two two-card candidate hands existed in the private research channel; the October 23 Friday output reported them unavailable to that run. Preserve that historical lack of access, rather than describing the week as undealt. No private contents or retrospective scoring are added.","provenance":"Nausicäa Friday Showdown · recorded run 63daf644-a884-8327-8f16-0666b30625e8 · completed 23 October 2026 16:03:43 UTC. Recovered 24 October. These are archived research assertions; sources have not been independently reverified during this import. Thursday correction source: Nausicäa Cipher Card · run a380725e-0ea8-8324-a04a-5d35d3b15c11 · completed 22 October 2026 16:57:31 UTC. Import timestamp denotes recovery, not original publication. Current Thursday source abstract checked directly on arXiv on 24 October 2026. This revision changes Thursday’s explanation only; reconstructed placements elsewhere are retained. Private-deal existence checked on 24 October against Sidra’s Day Deal, completed run 8852087e-365c-832c-94b6-f0b4427a5087 dated 17 October 2026. That private record contains two two-card candidate hands for October 19–23. The Friday run’s unavailability is an access/recovery state, not evidence that no deal occurred. This public history records existence only.","status":"reconstructed","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Checkable commitments, explicit limits","authors":"Project Nausicäa · archived Friday research record","summary":"Extension, stopping and exclusion rules determine whether a certificate remains useful after the system changes. This archived week asks what verification establishes, and what still requires authority, evidence availability, and contestable participation.","claim":"The recorded river describes Cambium’s committee-based commitments under explicit fault and assignment assumptions.","inference":"Portable evidence can reduce inspection burdens while leaving truth, ownership, authorized use and membership governance as separate questions. No verdict is assigned to inaccessible private hands.","sources":[{"title":"Cambium","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-19T16:00:00Z","title":"Exit-aware contracting","text":"Boris Velasevic, Eden Saig, Eric Mazumdar; v1 October 16. Archived showdown account: likelihood-ratio e-values support contracts robust to unknown stopping rules. Fixed-horizon incentives can fail when either party can end the interaction. LUNCH: stopping / control. This is a reconstructed Monday placement, not a recovered Monday draw.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Exit-aware contracting","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22781"}]},{"date":"2026-10-20T16:00:00Z","title":"Compensation without money","text":"David X. Lin, Chido Onyeze, Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, Éva Tardos; v1 October 18. Archived showdown account: coupled simulations estimate pairwise externalities in O(n²) expected amortized time per period, independent of horizon. LUNCH: nuisance / allocation. Reconstructed Tuesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Compensation without money","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"}]},{"date":"2026-10-21T16:00:00Z","title":"Extension changes incidence","text":"Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan; v1 October 20. Archived showdown account: preserving the menu versus preserving pricing yields different extremal extensions and opposite bounds on buyer payoffs. Extensibility does not determine distribution. Reconstructed Wednesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Extension changes incidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27839"}]},{"date":"2026-10-22T16:00:00Z","title":"K♦ · Who Enforces the Premium?","text":"Hieu Tran and Hong Yu, “Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel? What Reinforcement Learning Teaches LLM Agents in Markets,” submitted October 20, 2026. Recorded October 22 draw. SOURCE: the paper tests enforcement by imposing a deviation in counterfactual copies of a market. Policies with similar profits can differ in whether their responses deter deviations; observed outcomes alone do not distinguish those cases. DECK INTERPRETATION: ask what actually changes after an observable action, under the applicable participation, authority and resource constraints. This does not require a participant to adopt the evaluator’s position or make an available refusal into defection. REVISION: the R(d) and G_H expressions formerly displayed here were assistant-introduced local audit notation, not a definition of the project’s η or language ℓ; they are retired from the current explanation and retained in r2. The archived K♦ cipher is retained. No private hand is imported.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel?","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28787v1"}]},{"date":"2026-10-23T16:00:00Z","title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","text":"Mansoor “Manny” Ahmed, Dann Toliver, Ekaterina Pavlova; v1 October 21, listed October 23. Archived river account: committees certify inputs and merge commitments into a shared root. The stated finality bound assumes fewer than one-third Byzantine participants and specified signing and assignment conditions. Safety does not guarantee progress. A root binds a record; it does not establish truth, ownership, or authorized use.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]}]},{"id":"2026-10-17-reviewed-r3","week":"2026-10-17","revision":3,"label":"17–23 Oct 2026","recordedAt":"2026-10-24T20:43:21.589Z","reason":"Immediate clarification of the October 22 card: remove assistant-introduced local R(d)/G_H notation from the current display; distinguish the paper’s enforcement audit from the deck’s interpretation and preserve η and language ℓ in their established project namespaces. Earlier formulations remain in revision history.","provenance":"Nausicäa Friday Showdown · recorded run 63daf644-a884-8327-8f16-0666b30625e8 · completed 23 October 2026 16:03:43 UTC. Recovered 24 October. These are archived research assertions; sources have not been independently reverified during this import. Thursday correction source: Nausicäa Cipher Card · run a380725e-0ea8-8324-a04a-5d35d3b15c11 · completed 22 October 2026 16:57:31 UTC. Import timestamp denotes recovery, not original publication. Current Thursday source abstract checked directly on arXiv on 24 October 2026. This revision changes Thursday’s explanation only; reconstructed placements elsewhere are retained.","status":"reconstructed","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Checkable commitments, explicit limits","authors":"Project Nausicäa · archived Friday research record","summary":"Extension, stopping and exclusion rules determine whether a certificate remains useful after the system changes. This archived week asks what verification establishes, and what still requires authority, evidence availability, and contestable participation.","claim":"The recorded river describes Cambium’s committee-based commitments under explicit fault and assignment assumptions.","inference":"Portable evidence can reduce inspection burdens while leaving truth, ownership, authorized use and membership governance as separate questions. No verdict is assigned to inaccessible private hands.","sources":[{"title":"Cambium","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-19T16:00:00Z","title":"Exit-aware contracting","text":"Boris Velasevic, Eden Saig, Eric Mazumdar; v1 October 16. Archived showdown account: likelihood-ratio e-values support contracts robust to unknown stopping rules. Fixed-horizon incentives can fail when either party can end the interaction. LUNCH: stopping / control. This is a reconstructed Monday placement, not a recovered Monday draw.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Exit-aware contracting","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22781"}]},{"date":"2026-10-20T16:00:00Z","title":"Compensation without money","text":"David X. Lin, Chido Onyeze, Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, Éva Tardos; v1 October 18. Archived showdown account: coupled simulations estimate pairwise externalities in O(n²) expected amortized time per period, independent of horizon. LUNCH: nuisance / allocation. Reconstructed Tuesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Compensation without money","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"}]},{"date":"2026-10-21T16:00:00Z","title":"Extension changes incidence","text":"Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan; v1 October 20. Archived showdown account: preserving the menu versus preserving pricing yields different extremal extensions and opposite bounds on buyer payoffs. Extensibility does not determine distribution. Reconstructed Wednesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Extension changes incidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27839"}]},{"date":"2026-10-22T16:00:00Z","title":"K♦ · Who Enforces the Premium?","text":"Hieu Tran and Hong Yu, “Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel? What Reinforcement Learning Teaches LLM Agents in Markets,” submitted October 20, 2026. Recorded October 22 draw. SOURCE: the paper tests enforcement by imposing a deviation in counterfactual copies of a market. Policies with similar profits can differ in whether their responses deter deviations; observed outcomes alone do not distinguish those cases. DECK INTERPRETATION: ask what actually changes after an observable action, under the applicable participation, authority and resource constraints. This does not require a participant to adopt the evaluator’s position or make an available refusal into defection. REVISION: the R(d) and G_H expressions formerly displayed here were assistant-introduced local audit notation, not a definition of the project’s η or language ℓ; they are retired from the current explanation and retained in r2. The archived K♦ cipher is retained. No private hand is imported.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel?","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28787v1"}]},{"date":"2026-10-23T16:00:00Z","title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","text":"Mansoor “Manny” Ahmed, Dann Toliver, Ekaterina Pavlova; v1 October 21, listed October 23. Archived river account: committees certify inputs and merge commitments into a shared root. The stated finality bound assumes fewer than one-third Byzantine participants and specified signing and assignment conditions. Safety does not guarantee progress. A root binds a record; it does not establish truth, ownership, or authorized use.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]}]},{"id":"2026-10-17-recovered-r2","week":"2026-10-17","revision":2,"label":"17–23 Oct 2026","recordedAt":"2026-10-24T18:00:00Z","reason":"Reconcile Friday’s reconstruction with the separately recorded October 22 daily draw. Replace Thursday only; retain the reconstructed Thursday in r1. The other weekday placements remain reconstructed.","provenance":"Nausicäa Friday Showdown · recorded run 63daf644-a884-8327-8f16-0666b30625e8 · completed 23 October 2026 16:03:43 UTC. Recovered 24 October. These are archived research assertions; sources have not been independently reverified during this import. Thursday correction source: Nausicäa Cipher Card · run a380725e-0ea8-8324-a04a-5d35d3b15c11 · completed 22 October 2026 16:57:31 UTC. Import timestamp denotes recovery, not original publication.","status":"reconstructed","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Checkable commitments, explicit limits","authors":"Project Nausicäa · archived Friday research record","summary":"Extension, stopping and exclusion rules determine whether a certificate remains useful after the system changes. This archived week asks what verification establishes, and what still requires authority, evidence availability, and contestable participation.","claim":"The recorded river describes Cambium’s committee-based commitments under explicit fault and assignment assumptions.","inference":"Portable evidence can reduce inspection burdens while leaving truth, ownership, authorized use and membership governance as separate questions. No verdict is assigned to inaccessible private hands.","sources":[{"title":"Cambium","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-19T16:00:00Z","title":"Exit-aware contracting","text":"Boris Velasevic, Eden Saig, Eric Mazumdar; v1 October 16. Archived showdown account: likelihood-ratio e-values support contracts robust to unknown stopping rules. Fixed-horizon incentives can fail when either party can end the interaction. LUNCH: stopping / control. This is a reconstructed Monday placement, not a recovered Monday draw.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Exit-aware contracting","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22781"}]},{"date":"2026-10-20T16:00:00Z","title":"Compensation without money","text":"David X. Lin, Chido Onyeze, Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, Éva Tardos; v1 October 18. Archived showdown account: coupled simulations estimate pairwise externalities in O(n²) expected amortized time per period, independent of horizon. LUNCH: nuisance / allocation. Reconstructed Tuesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Compensation without money","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"}]},{"date":"2026-10-21T16:00:00Z","title":"Extension changes incidence","text":"Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan; v1 October 20. Archived showdown account: preserving the menu versus preserving pricing yields different extremal extensions and opposite bounds on buyer payoffs. Extensibility does not determine distribution. Reconstructed Wednesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Extension changes incidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27839"}]},{"date":"2026-10-22T16:00:00Z","title":"K♦ · Who Enforces the Premium?","text":"Hieu Tran and Hong Yu, “Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel? What Reinforcement Learning Teaches LLM Agents in Markets,” v1 October 20, cross-listed October 22. Actual recorded Thursday draw: paired deviation audits with shared randomness, placebos and positive controls distinguish similarly profitable policies by their responses to deviations. Local audit notation: R(d)=E[p⁰−pᵈ]/d; G_H(d)=E[Σ η_a^ℓ(πᵈ−π⁰)]. Finite horizons and ordinary best responses limit interpretation. Compare Green–Porter (1984) on imperfect monitoring. This corrects Friday’s reconstructed Thursday placement; private-hand comparisons are excluded.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Is Anyone Enforcing the Cartel?","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28787v1"}]},{"date":"2026-10-23T16:00:00Z","title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","text":"Mansoor “Manny” Ahmed, Dann Toliver, Ekaterina Pavlova; v1 October 21, listed October 23. Archived river account: committees certify inputs and merge commitments into a shared root. The stated finality bound assumes fewer than one-third Byzantine participants and specified signing and assignment conditions. Safety does not guarantee progress. A root binds a record; it does not establish truth, ownership, or authorized use.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]}]},{"id":"2026-10-17-recovered-r1","week":"2026-10-17","revision":1,"label":"17–23 Oct 2026","recordedAt":"2026-10-23T16:03:43Z","reason":"Import the recorded Friday output. Monday–Thursday were explicitly reconstructed there; private weekend hands were unavailable and are excluded.","provenance":"Nausicäa Friday Showdown · recorded run 63daf644-a884-8327-8f16-0666b30625e8 · completed 23 October 2026 16:03:43 UTC. Recovered 24 October. These are archived research assertions; sources have not been independently reverified during this import.","status":"reconstructed","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Checkable commitments, explicit limits","authors":"Project Nausicäa · archived Friday research record","summary":"Extension, stopping and exclusion rules determine whether a certificate remains useful after the system changes. This archived week asks what verification establishes, and what still requires authority, evidence availability, and contestable participation.","claim":"The recorded river describes Cambium’s committee-based commitments under explicit fault and assignment assumptions.","inference":"Portable evidence can reduce inspection burdens while leaving truth, ownership, authorized use and membership governance as separate questions. No verdict is assigned to inaccessible private hands.","sources":[{"title":"Cambium","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-10-19T16:00:00Z","title":"Exit-aware contracting","text":"Boris Velasevic, Eden Saig, Eric Mazumdar; v1 October 16. Archived showdown account: likelihood-ratio e-values support contracts robust to unknown stopping rules. Fixed-horizon incentives can fail when either party can end the interaction. LUNCH: stopping / control. This is a reconstructed Monday placement, not a recovered Monday draw.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Exit-aware contracting","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22781"}]},{"date":"2026-10-20T16:00:00Z","title":"Compensation without money","text":"David X. Lin, Chido Onyeze, Giannis Fikioris, Siddhartha Banerjee, Éva Tardos; v1 October 18. Archived showdown account: coupled simulations estimate pairwise externalities in O(n²) expected amortized time per period, independent of horizon. LUNCH: nuisance / allocation. Reconstructed Tuesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Compensation without money","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25067"}]},{"date":"2026-10-21T16:00:00Z","title":"Extension changes incidence","text":"Sergiu Hart, Noam Nisan; v1 October 20. Archived showdown account: preserving the menu versus preserving pricing yields different extremal extensions and opposite bounds on buyer payoffs. Extensibility does not determine distribution. Reconstructed Wednesday placement.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Extension changes incidence","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27839"}]},{"date":"2026-10-22T16:00:00Z","title":"Certify the returned strategy","text":"Boning Li, Longbo Huang; v1 October 21. Archived showdown account: regret accumulators plus signed value corrections yield online NashGap certificates. Low regret alone is insufficient in general-sum games. Reconstructed Thursday placement; a separately recorded Thursday draw differs.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Certify the returned strategy","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29300"}]},{"date":"2026-10-23T16:00:00Z","title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","text":"Mansoor “Manny” Ahmed, Dann Toliver, Ekaterina Pavlova; v1 October 21, listed October 23. Archived river account: committees certify inputs and merge commitments into a shared root. The stated finality bound assumes fewer than one-third Byzantine participants and specified signing and assignment conditions. Safety does not guarantee progress. A root binds a record; it does not establish truth, ownership, or authorized use.","state":"unresolved","sources":[{"title":"Cambium: participant-built commitment roots","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30409"}]}]},{"id":"inaugural-r1","week":"2026-08-29","revision":1,"label":"Week 01 · 29 Aug–4 Sep 2026","recordedAt":"2026-08-28T07:44:43Z","reason":"Original published Site, preserved as the inaugural baseline.","provenance":"WHAT’S FOR LUNCH · Site version 1 · published 28 August 2026. Imported from its source; later weekly research records have not been recovered.","status":"original","publicApproved":true,"brief":{"title":"Token-Level Advertising","authors":"Hanbing Liu · Bowei Zhang · Changyuan Yu · Yinyu Ye · Qi Qi","summary":"The ad slot disappears into the generation path. LAMA takes advertisers’ local continuation values, induces next-token policies, and decodes a latent mixture while updating an allocation posterior.","claim":"Markov DSIC + IR, with near-optimal KL-regularized welfare.","inference":"Observability moves from priced slots to marginal policy influence. Truthful advertiser reports do not, by themselves, price user agency, biometric identity, or license-postprocessing costs.","sources":[{"title":"Token-Level Advertising","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27382"},{"title":"Consensus with Stochastic Broadcast","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27336"}]},"cards":[{"date":"2026-08-31T16:00:00Z","title":"Card one","text":"The inaugural Site provided a playing-card lens here, but no dated research-card record. ⊥L · research record unavailable.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-09-01T16:00:00Z","title":"Card two","text":"The inaugural Site provided a playing-card lens here, but no dated research-card record. ⊥L · research record unavailable.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-09-02T16:00:00Z","title":"Card three","text":"The inaugural Site provided a playing-card lens here, but no dated research-card record. ⊥L · research record unavailable.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-09-03T16:00:00Z","title":"Card four","text":"The inaugural Site provided a playing-card lens here, but no dated research-card record. ⊥L · research record unavailable.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]},{"date":"2026-09-04T16:00:00Z","title":"The river","text":"The inaugural Site provided a playing-card lens here, but no dated research-card record. ⊥L · research record unavailable.","state":"unavailable","sources":[]}]}]}