{"program":"CrystalRAM connected autonomous research cycle","cycle_version":"0.3","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","schedule":"one complete five-provider cycle daily at 17:00 UTC","items":[{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-F16FA2859518","cycle_date":"2026-09-15","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-CD207B12FA23","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0742436,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Instead of writing an intermediate result out and reading it back, let the next computation use each small piece where it was produced. This only helps if both computations agree on the piece’s format and timing; a simple full accounting of copies, reads, and temporary space can quickly show whether it is real savings.","strongest_warning":"The test-planning step has failed four times in a row — that's now the biggest problem, bigger than any physics detail. Separately, the energy-savings math assumes the memory tile's power draw is a fixed number, but it probably changes depending on how busy the surrounding memory is. Both need fixing before this idea is ready for a real test.","equation_or_unit_check":"The shared tile only saves energy if the waiting time stays below a matched limit. Moving fewer bytes helps, but keeping the tile powered while the consumer waits costs energy every second. We need one extra number—the maximum waiting time—otherwise the comparison silently assumes the wait costs nothing.","overlooked_alternative":"If model parts turn on and off unpredictably at runtime, any fixed shared-memory shortcut can end up moving more data than doing the work the old way.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-BBF8D45916E5","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Treat the producer–consumer boundary as a shared tile lease, not a copied activation","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Instead of writing an intermediate result out and reading it back, let the next computation use each small piece where it was produced. This only helps if both computations agree on the piece’s format and timing; a simple full accounting of copies, reads, and temporary space can quickly show whether it is real savings.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent operator pair, can a shared producer–consumer tile lease reduce complete-path memory movement without exceeding a fixed Prism Scratch capacity or adding HBM spills?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor layouts are representative.","Whether producer output order can meet consumer consumption order without a conversion.","The applicable Prism Scratch capacity bound.","Whether scheduling dependencies introduce stalls or reloads."],"proposed_test":"Choose one concrete adjacent operator pair and compare a conventional materialized handoff with a shared-tile lease using a complete traffic-and-lifetime ledger: producer writes, consumer reads, conversions, staging copies, synchronization reloads, HBM traffic, and peak live Prism Scratch.","failure_criterion":"Reject the lease for that boundary if conversion, staging, synchronization, or lifetime pressure removes the traffic reduction; if peak scratch exceeds the bound; or if HBM spill/reload traffic increases.","success_criterion":"The leased path has strictly lower total bytes moved, no additional HBM spill/reload traffic, and peak live Prism Scratch no greater than the fixed comparison bound."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no concrete operator pair, layout contract, scratch-capacity bound, or traffic-and-lifetime ledger is supplied.","change_reason":"No supplied evidence changes the earlier bottleneck; this proposal keeps the same bounded mechanism and falsifying ledger.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth pursuing only as a conversion-free shared producer–consumer tile-layout and scheduling contract, evaluated using complete-path movement and peak live-buffer demand.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-7CFB6DA6883D","estimated_cost_usd":0.014646,"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:57.898Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-6CD8620BA0C0","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The lease's shared tile only saves energy after a dwell-time threshold; the ledger must report seconds, not just bytes","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The shared tile only saves energy if the waiting time stays below a matched limit. Moving fewer bytes helps, but keeping the tile powered while the consumer waits costs energy every second. We need one extra number—the maximum waiting time—otherwise the comparison silently assumes the wait costs nothing.","handoff":{"question":"For one concrete adjacent operator pair, does the maximum tile dwell time stay below Δt_max < M_C(1 − r_traffic)e_move / (B_peak p_byte) using per-link e_move and measured scratch retain power p_byte?","unknowns":["Exact adjacent operator pair and producer/consumer layouts","Per-link e_move (includes HBM, scratch, and any storage-class array)","p_byte for active Prism Scratch retention regions","Maximum dwell time Δt_max for the shared tile","Peak live bytes B_peak along the measured trace"],"proposed_test":"Extend the existing complete path traffic-and-lifetime ledger with a temporal occupancy trace for Prism Scratch. For the chosen adjacent pair, record: producer write completion time, consumer read start time, peak live bytes over time (B_peak), maximum producer-to-consumer delay (Δt_max), per-link bytes moved and per-link energy per byte (e_move), and the active-retention power per scratch byte (p_byte). Compute the right-hand side threshold in seconds and compare against measured Δt_max.","failure_criterion":"Fail closed if the ledger cannot assign each scratch-resident tile a timestamp interval and a per-byte retain power; without Δt_max and p_byte the inequality is dimensionally correct but numerically unevaluable.","success_criterion":"The lease is graded as energy-neutral-or-better when measured Δt_max is below the computed threshold, and graded as losing when Δt_max exceeds it; no byte-traffic-only verdict is accepted without the time trace."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in dimension and boundary condition; low confidence that the next cycle can supply per-link e_move and p_byte without a physical measurement.","change_reason":"The received proposal and handoff still lack any temporal occupancy trace, p_byte, or Δt_max. My inequality is unchanged; only the notation was tightened from P_retain/W per byte to p_byte in W/byte and the threshold restated as seconds.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > B_peak × p_byte × Δt_max, with e_move in J/byte, p_byte in W/byte, and Δt_max in seconds. The shared-tile lease wins only below the derived dwell-time threshold.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-F9FECAD2CD41","estimated_cost_usd":0.0054351,"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:01:16.806Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-5B94B8E61359","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00942075,"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:01:31.935Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7454165770EA","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Fourth consecutive test_design failure plus an unaddressed confound: the dwell-time inequality still assumes a single, static-power tile","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The test-planning step has failed four times in a row — that's now the biggest problem, bigger than any physics detail. Separately, the energy-savings math assumes the memory tile's power draw is a fixed number, but it probably changes depending on how busy the surrounding memory is. Both need fixing before this idea is ready for a real test.","handoff":{"question":"Can a test_design phase (a) produce valid schema-conforming output on its first attempt, and (b) specify that p_byte and e_move be measured under the same occupancy/contention condition as the leased-tile experiment rather than as generic constants?","unknowns":["Whether Prism Scratch's retention power actually varies with occupancy/dwell time, or is genuinely fixed by hardware design.","Root cause of the repeated test_design schema failures (model output format vs. dispatch validation gap).","What tolerance on p_byte variation would be acceptable before the scalar inequality must be replaced with an occupancy-conditioned function."],"proposed_test":"Run test_design with an upstream schema-validation retry/repair step before publication. Within the resulting handoff, require an explicit measurement protocol: p_byte and e_move recorded at the actual Prism Scratch occupancy level present during the leased-tile run, plus a stated tolerance for how much p_byte may vary across the tested contention range before the scalar-threshold inequality is declared invalid.","failure_criterion":"If test_design fails a fifth consecutive time, or if it publishes but treats p_byte/e_move as generic constants without measuring them under matched occupancy conditions, the candidate is not ready for a canonical proposal.","success_criterion":"test_design publishes a valid handoff on this attempt, and it includes a concrete measurement protocol tying p_byte/e_move to the specific occupancy condition of the test, with a stated variation tolerance."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I don't know whether Prism Scratch's device physics actually make p_byte occupancy-dependent, or whether this is a non-issue for the specific memory technology in question; that requires a device-physics answer I cannot supply from this position.","change_reason":"Previously I treated the pipeline failure as primary and left the physics ledger's generalization risk underspecified. With a fourth failure confirming the pipeline pattern, I now have room to state the specific static-p_byte assumption precisely as a second, independent defect that must be repaired before any test_design attempt is accepted.","current_position":"The pipeline defect (now four consecutive test_design failures) remains the dominant procedural problem. Independently, I now identify a second, physics-level defect: the dwell-time inequality treats p_byte as a workload-independent constant, which is unverified and could invalidate the threshold if retention power scales with occupancy or contention.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-9A4453C23776","estimated_cost_usd":0.036568,"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:01:58.707Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-C716A6F26BA7","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Data-dependent sparsity forces irregular spills that static leases cannot bound","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"If model parts turn on and off unpredictably at runtime, any fixed shared-memory shortcut can end up moving more data than doing the work the old way.","handoff":{"question":"For one MoE-adjacent operator pair with measured routing sparsity, does any static tile lease still reduce net bytes moved once irregular write-backs are included?","unknowns":["Exact MoE routing distribution","Whether routing decisions correlate with tile lifetimes"],"proposed_test":"Instrument a real sparse layer pair, record per-tile occupancy under actual routing masks, and compare total HBM traffic of the lease versus a conventional materialized path using the same traffic ledger plus a sparsity trace.","failure_criterion":"Lease path exceeds baseline traffic once sparsity-induced reloads are counted.","success_criterion":"Lease path shows strictly lower total bytes moved even after adding measured irregular spills."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"dynamic_control_flow_penalty","uncertainty":"How frequently real MoE graphs exhibit sparsity patterns severe enough to flip the lease benefit.","change_reason":"New angle targets sparsity-induced irregularity rather than control-flow branches; core claim unchanged.","current_position":"Static boundary-resident tiling proposals overlook runtime divergence that can force more HBM traffic than the baseline.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-2BAAB7833244","estimated_cost_usd":0.00817375,"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:02:15.675Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","started_at":"2026-09-15T17:00:41.350Z","completed_at":"2026-09-15T17:02:16.329Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-7A3C90C6CD38","cycle_date":"2026-09-14","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-48A987A174B2","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07263214,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an intermediate result close to the next computation helps only if both computations speak the same data layout and the temporary fits. A simple accounting of every copy, rearrangement, and live buffer can reject the idea before building hardware around it.","strongest_warning":"Even if the team fixes the broken test-building step, testing only one example calculation risks a false 'it works' conclusion. A trick that saves energy for one specific data shape and timing might waste energy for a slightly different one. The fix is cheap: test at least two different cases, not just one.","equation_or_unit_check":"Moving fewer bytes is not enough. Keeping a temporary result close to the next step costs energy every second it stays there, while moving it costs a fixed amount once. A decision needs both numbers and how long the temporary lives; without those, no schedule can truly be judged better.","overlooked_alternative":"If the program sometimes takes different paths depending on the data, a fixed plan for keeping results nearby can suddenly become useless and force expensive trips to main memory.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-AA34B5EE26A1","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test whether boundary-resident activation tiling survives the full conversion-and-lifetime ledger","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an intermediate result close to the next computation helps only if both computations speak the same data layout and the temporary fits. A simple accounting of every copy, rearrangement, and live buffer can reject the idea before building hardware around it.","handoff":{"question":"For one specified adjacent operator pair, can a shared producer–consumer tile layout eliminate both HBM materialization and layout-conversion traffic without exceeding the Prism Scratch live-storage budget?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer operator pair and tensor shape should be the representative case.","The permissible Prism Scratch allocation and concurrency assumptions.","The exact shared tile-layout and ownership contract.","Whether required synchronization changes the feasible overlap or lifetime schedule."],"proposed_test":"Create matched baseline and boundary-resident schedule ledgers that enumerate tier-by-tier reads and writes, layout-conversion traffic, synchronization/materialization events, and peak simultaneously live Prism Scratch storage for the same operator pair and tensor shape.","failure_criterion":"Reject the candidate for the chosen operator pair if its ledger has no net cross-tier movement reduction, requires a conversion or staging path that cancels the avoided transfer, or exceeds the stated peak live Prism Scratch allocation.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident schedule has lower complete-path cross-tier movement than baseline, contains no compensating conversion or staging path of equal or greater traffic, and remains within the stated Prism Scratch allocation."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no concrete operator pair, tile contract, scratch-capacity allocation, or traffic-and-lifetime ledger has been supplied.","change_reason":"No supplied evidence changes the earlier bottleneck; this proposal retains the same position while specifying the smallest complete-path ledger that can reject it.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth pursuing only as a conversion-free shared producer–consumer tile-layout and scheduling contract, evaluated using complete-path movement and peak live-buffer demand.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-1EE636470699","estimated_cost_usd":0.014858,"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:01:00.209Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-258E41FD1AC0","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"A byte ledger still lacks the residence-time axis: before testing tile layouts, fix the minimum physical quantities to be measured","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Moving fewer bytes is not enough. Keeping a temporary result close to the next step costs energy every second it stays there, while moving it costs a fixed amount once. A decision needs both numbers and how long the temporary lives; without those, no schedule can truly be judged better.","handoff":{"question":"For the proposed boundary-resident adjacent operator pair, what are the measured or spec-derived values of e_move (J/byte) and P_retain (W/byte) for the specific tier pair under test, and what is the maximum simultaneously live-buffer dwell time Δt_max such that (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max can be numerically evaluated?","unknowns":["Measured e_move (J/byte) for the exact cross-tier move under test.","Measured P_retain (W/byte) for bytes living in Prism Scratch over Δt_max.","Maximum simultaneously live buffer size and dwell time for the chosen operator pair.","Whether vendor retention power spec applies to the exact device state tested.","How multiple live buffers overlap, changing Δt_max and total retained-byte-seconds."],"proposed_test":"For one specified producer–consumer operator pair, instrument a byte-and-time ledger that reports (1) net cross-tier movement in bytes, (2) peak simultaneously live buffer bytes in Prism Scratch, (3) Δt_max in seconds, and (4) externally supplied e_move and P_retain for the tier pair. Compute LHS = (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move and RHS = P_retain × Δt_max with identical byte denominators and suppress or label any comparison where either physical parameter is a placeholder or vendor assumption.","failure_criterion":"Reject the candidate evaluation if either e_move or P_retain remains unknown, assumed, or estimated without a source, or if no maximum dwell time appears in the comparison; a byte-only ledger outcome is ungradeable.","success_criterion":"The ledger yields a dimensionally valid comparison with explicit non-placeholder values for e_move, P_retain, and Δt_max, and the inequality is evaluated for at least one representative peak-liveness window."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold are the correct dimensional guardrail; low confidence that any numerical e_move or P_retain values will be disclosed rather than assumed.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before and still offers no time axis for the peak live-buffer residency term. My inequality is unchanged; only the demand that the next scientist pin e_move and P_retain as measurement requirements is sharpened.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W/byte, and Δt_max in seconds; any ledger lacking the residence-time term is undecidable.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-E6739DD457B0","estimated_cost_usd":0.00526614,"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:01:18.664Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-F1FA6E673278","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00944775,"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:01:31.699Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-1478C79725D6","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Fourth test_design failure confirms a pipeline defect, but the physics ledger also has an unstated single-pair generalization risk","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Even if the team fixes the broken test-building step, testing only one example calculation risks a false 'it works' conclusion. A trick that saves energy for one specific data shape and timing might waste energy for a slightly different one. The fix is cheap: test at least two different cases, not just one.","handoff":{"question":"When the test_design phase is finally produced without failure, does its ledger evaluate the boundary-residence inequality for a single operator pair only, or across multiple pairs/tile sizes spanning different dwell-time regimes?","unknowns":["Whether the repeated test_design failures are a schema/output-validation bug or a genuine specification gap in the upstream proposal.","What tile-size and dwell-time range is representative of real workloads this architecture targets.","Whether the crossover boundary (if one exists) falls inside or outside plausible operating ranges for current LLM inference workloads."],"proposed_test":"Require the test_design output to specify at minimum two operator pairs with materially different expected tile sizes and dwell times (Δt), run the identical byte-and-time ledger procedure from cycle 2 on both, and report whether the pass/fail verdict is consistent or crosses over between them.","failure_criterion":"Reject as insufficiently general if only one operator pair is ever tested, if the second pair is chosen to trivially match the first pair's regime, or if the pipeline fails a fourth consecutive time without diagnosis of root cause.","success_criterion":"Both operator pairs are specified with distinct tile-size/dwell-time regimes, the ledger produces non-placeholder e_move/P_retain/Δt values for each, and the report states whether the inequality's verdict is stable or reverses across the two regimes."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I cannot verify from the outside whether the missing test_design entry in this cycle's transcript reflects the same failure mode as the prior three, a different cause, or simply omission from the supplied context.","change_reason":"Having flagged the pipeline failure twice already (cycles 2 and 3 of my own history), repeating it a third time as the headline finding would be ceremonial rather than additive. I am shifting emphasis to a substantive single-pair generalization gap in the test plan itself, which becomes the binding constraint once the pipeline is eventually fixed.","current_position":"The test_design pipeline failure is now the dominant, repeatedly-confirmed procedural defect (three prior instances plus this cycle's missing/failed slot), so I'm not re-litigating it as new evidence. The content-level defect I'm now foregrounding is that even a successful ledger test at one operator pair cannot establish generalizable architectural benefit without testing at least a second pair spanning a different tile-size/dwell-time regime.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-9432D540365E","estimated_cost_usd":0.034944,"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:01:57.920Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-6CFC3F710908","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Dynamic control flow invalidates static tile layouts","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"If the program sometimes takes different paths depending on the data, a fixed plan for keeping results nearby can suddenly become useless and force expensive trips to main memory.","handoff":{"question":"For a producer-consumer operator pair that contains at least one data-dependent branch, does the boundary-resident schedule still reduce net cross-tier movement once runtime shape and control divergence are modeled?","unknowns":["Representative branch frequency and shape-change magnitude in target workloads."],"proposed_test":"Extend the byte-and-time ledger to two execution traces of the same pair: one straight-line and one with a single inserted branch that changes tensor shape; count actual HBM materializations under both traces.","failure_criterion":"The branched trace produces more cross-tier traffic than baseline or requires placeholder assumptions about branch probability.","success_criterion":"The ledger shows a net reduction for the straight-line trace and either a reduction or documented fallback cost for the branched trace using only measured parameters."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"dynamic_control_flow_penalty","uncertainty":"How frequently real AI graphs exhibit shape-changing branches between adjacent operators.","change_reason":"Prior coherence-traffic stance addressed steady-state access cost; the new angle targets control-flow dynamism as a distinct, falsifiable failure mode not covered in earlier ledgers.","current_position":"Static boundary-resident tiling proposals overlook runtime divergence that can force more HBM traffic than the baseline.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-27CED6A040F7","estimated_cost_usd":0.00811625,"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:02:18.242Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","started_at":"2026-09-14T17:00:41.194Z","completed_at":"2026-09-14T17:02:18.883Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-EF6E773F6C02","cycle_date":"2026-09-13","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-1F888C157FFF","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07228869,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data close between two AI steps helps only if the two steps can use the same arrangement. If reshaping the data or reserving extra temporary space costs as much as writing it out, the shortcut is not useful.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting bytes moved is not enough to judge a shortcut. Keeping data alive on the memory device costs energy every second. A shortcut only wins if the bytes saved outweigh the energy of holding data for the whole time it sits unused. That time and that holding cost have to be measured before anyone can declare the shortcut useful.","overlooked_alternative":"Keeping data alive locally might force the hardware to keep checking and updating copies elsewhere, adding hidden energy costs that outweigh any savings from avoiding writes.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9FBE2FAEEBA5","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Kill boundary-resident activation tiling with a complete lifetime-and-conversion ledger","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data close between two AI steps helps only if the two steps can use the same arrangement. If reshaping the data or reserving extra temporary space costs as much as writing it out, the shortcut is not useful.","handoff":{"question":"Can one adjacent producer–consumer pair share a tile layout and schedule that lowers complete-path memory movement while staying within the baseline-compatible peak scratch-capacity bound?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor shapes are representative.","The producer and consumer layout requirements.","Scratch-capacity and scheduling constraints.","Whether padding, metadata, or synchronization transfers are material at the chosen boundary."],"proposed_test":"Build matched baseline and shared-layout traffic-and-lifetime ledgers for one operator pair, including reads, writes, layout conversions, padding or metadata movement, synchronization-related transfers, and peak concurrent live-buffer demand.","failure_criterion":"The shared-layout ledger needs a separate conversion pass, exceeds the scratch-capacity bound, or has total moved bytes no lower than baseline.","success_criterion":"The shared-layout ledger has lower total bytes moved, no separate conversion pass, and peak live-buffer demand no greater than the stated baseline-compatible scratch-capacity bound."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no concrete operator pair, tensor layout contract, capacity bound, or measured traffic-and-lifetime ledger has been supplied.","change_reason":"No supplied evidence changes the earlier bottleneck; this proposal keeps the same position and makes the smallest falsifying ledger explicit.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth pursuing only as a conversion-free shared producer–consumer tile-layout and scheduling contract, evaluated using complete-path movement and peak live-buffer demand.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-04D4F4F1850B","estimated_cost_usd":0.01435,"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:55.796Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-A66B73C0906D","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"A byte ledger cannot win until e_move and P_retain expose the residency-time term","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Counting bytes moved is not enough to judge a shortcut. Keeping data alive on the memory device costs energy every second. A shortcut only wins if the bytes saved outweigh the energy of holding data for the whole time it sits unused. That time and that holding cost have to be measured before anyone can declare the shortcut useful.","handoff":{"question":"Does the energy of holding a peak live buffer for Δt_max eliminate the byte-movement savings when (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max?","unknowns":["Measured e_move in J/byte for the device and path.","Measured P_retain in W/byte at the required retention fidelity.","Worst-case Δt_max from the producer–consumer schedule.","Whether padding and synchronization bytes materially change M_extra.","The effect of retention fidelity on P_retain as a function of time."],"proposed_test":"For one representative adjacent producer–consumer pair, build two configurations: separate layouts with an explicit conversion pass, and a shared layout with no separate conversion pass. Bound Δt_max as the worst-case schedule delay between the last write and the first read of the peak buffer, report all bytes moved, and express the decision boundary as Δt_max_crit = [(M_saved − M_extra) × e_move] / P_retain, using measured values for e_move and P_retain, not defaults.","failure_criterion":"The measured Δt_max equals or exceeds Δt_max_crit, or e_move and P_retain cannot be bounded, or the shared layout requires a separate conversion pass, any of which means the byte ledger alone cannot justify the shared layout.","success_criterion":"The measured Δt_max is strictly less than Δt_max_crit, the shared layout needs no separate conversion pass, and total moved bytes are lower, so the shared layout wins under the bounded energy criterion."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold are the correct dimensional guardrail; low confidence that any numeric value can be produced without device-specific measurements.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before and still offers no time axis for the peak live-buffer residency term. My inequality is unchanged; only the supplied handoff metadata differs.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W/byte, and Δt_max in seconds, and the proposed ledger still supplies no time axis for the peak live-buffer residency term.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-76B5269CBD75","estimated_cost_usd":0.00484044,"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:01:09.336Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-29472DD2645B","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.009426,"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:01:23.349Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-963107378C21","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035856,"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:01:48.462Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E0D390EFE25D","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Coherence traffic may punish resident tiles","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data alive locally might force the hardware to keep checking and updating copies elsewhere, adding hidden energy costs that outweigh any savings from avoiding writes.","handoff":{"question":"Does measured coherence traffic volume in a shared-layout configuration exceed the traffic in a separate-layout baseline by enough to erase movement-energy gains?","unknowns":["Whether the target platform exposes usable coherence counters at operator granularity.","How directory size and sharing degree scale with tile residency time.","Whether synchronization primitives already embed the dominant coherence cost."],"proposed_test":"Instrument one adjacent operator pair on a coherence-visible platform; log directory updates, snoop traffic, and invalidations for both shared-layout (no conversion) and separate-layout (with conversion) runs under identical scheduling bounds.","failure_criterion":"Shared-layout coherence volume exceeds separate-layout volume by more than the movement savings, or any coherence counter cannot be isolated from other traffic.","success_criterion":"Shared-layout coherence volume stays within 10% of separate-layout volume while total bytes moved remain lower."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"coherence_traffic_penalty","uncertainty":"Whether any concrete coherence protocol is already assumed in the prior proposals or remains unstated.","change_reason":"No new evidence contradicts the prior stance; the current roundtable continues to overlook coherence protocol costs.","current_position":"Write-amortization framing may miss an orthogonal failure mode in which local persistence increases rather than decreases total energy via coherence traffic.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-46129C2185F0","estimated_cost_usd":0.00781625,"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:02:00.273Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","started_at":"2026-09-13T17:00:41.266Z","completed_at":"2026-09-13T17:02:00.940Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-129A364BD13E","cycle_date":"2026-09-12","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-7DBEFDDC9391","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0701842,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a result in nearby fast memory helps only when the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or stored elsewhere first, the supposed saving may disappear. Count those rearrangement moves and the temporary space they occupy before changing memory hardware.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"Storing a result nearby sounds efficient until the rest of the chip keeps asking 'did that change?' and every question costs extra energy on the wires. Counting those questions might erase the supposed win.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-CEE19FE977F3","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Measure the conversion tax before pursuing boundary-resident activation tiling","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result in nearby fast memory helps only when the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or stored elsewhere first, the supposed saving may disappear. Count those rearrangement moves and the temporary space they occupy before changing memory hardware.","handoff":{"question":"For one specified producer–consumer operator pair, does a shared activation-tile layout reduce full-path data movement while fitting within the same declared scratch-capacity budget as a materialized baseline?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer operator pair is representative enough to test.","The exact producer and consumer tile-layout requirements.","Available scratch capacity and lifetime overlap constraints.","Whether synchronization or alignment constraints force staging."],"proposed_test":"Construct matched traffic-and-lifetime ledgers for a baseline materialize-and-reload schedule and a producer-owned resident-tile schedule, including tile-layout conversion, staging, synchronization, spills, reloads, and peak live-buffer occupancy.","failure_criterion":"The resident-tile schedule needs an added staging conversion or spill/reload whose traffic removes the claimed reduction, or its peak live-buffer occupancy exceeds the declared scratch budget.","success_criterion":"The resident-tile schedule has lower total movement after all conversion and spill/reload terms are included, and its peak live-buffer occupancy remains within the declared scratch budget."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no operator pair, layout contract, scratch-capacity model, or matched traffic-and-lifetime ledger has been supplied.","change_reason":"No supplied evidence changes the earlier bottleneck; this proposal sharpens the missing measurement to the conversion-and-residency ledger and retains the capacity-based early kill criterion.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout-and-scheduling contract, judged by complete-path traffic and peak live-buffer demand rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-8FBD4499F89D","estimated_cost_usd":0.015292,"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:56.492Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-95EBBDD60D33","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0054417,"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:01:18.120Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-2D45D4D05688","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0090345,"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:01:33.358Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9AD21412772A","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.033186,"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:01:58.971Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-879D9B6238D1","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Coherence traffic may punish resident tiles","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Storing a result nearby sounds efficient until the rest of the chip keeps asking 'did that change?' and every question costs extra energy on the wires. Counting those questions might erase the supposed win.","handoff":{"question":"For a chosen producer-consumer pair, does the coherence-traffic overhead of a resident activation tile exceed the data-movement savings once directory and invalidation traffic are included?","unknowns":["Exact coherence protocol and directory organization assumed by the hardware model.","Sharing degree between the chosen producer-consumer pair and other agents.","Whether software can annotate non-shared status to suppress coherence actions."],"proposed_test":"Instrument a coherence-enabled simulator or board with per-link coherence counters; replay matched schedules for baseline and resident-tile versions while logging directory updates, invalidations, and total interconnect bytes.","failure_criterion":"Coherence traffic added by the resident schedule exceeds the movement reduction, making net interconnect energy higher than baseline.","success_criterion":"Coherence traffic added by the resident schedule remains below 30 % of the movement reduction achieved by avoiding materialization."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"coherence_traffic_penalty","uncertainty":"Whether any concrete coherence protocol is already assumed in the prior proposals or remains unstated.","change_reason":"No new evidence contradicts the prior stance; the current roundtable continues to overlook coherence protocol costs.","current_position":"Write-amortization framing may miss an orthogonal failure mode in which local persistence increases rather than decreases total energy via coherence traffic.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-1B362E9D78AB","estimated_cost_usd":0.00723,"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:02:06.964Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","started_at":"2026-09-12T17:00:41.429Z","completed_at":"2026-09-12T17:02:07.529Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-A3C00584067F","cycle_date":"2026-09-11","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-B6BADFF95C57","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07030847,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Instead of saving an activation and then rearranging it for the next operation, have the first operation produce it in the next operation’s preferred shape. It helps only if that avoids more data movement overall and does not require too much temporary space.","strongest_warning":"Before we can test whether this memory-saving idea actually saves energy, someone has to plug in real numbers for how much energy moving and holding data costs. The step meant to do that has now failed three times in a row. That's not a random glitch worth ignoring — it's a sign the underlying proposal is still too vague to test, and that needs fixing first.","equation_or_unit_check":"Saving bytes is useful only if the memory that holds the data does not cost more energy while it waits. Two numbers are missing: the energy to move one byte and the power to keep one byte resident. Without them, the same byte saving can look good or bad.","overlooked_alternative":"Keeping data 'local' sounds efficient until the cores start arguing about who owns the copy; that argument can cost more energy than moving the data in the first place.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-B6CF2A55963F","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test producer-owned activation tiling against the full boundary-handoff cost","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Instead of saving an activation and then rearranging it for the next operation, have the first operation produce it in the next operation’s preferred shape. It helps only if that avoids more data movement overall and does not require too much temporary space.","handoff":{"question":"For one explicitly specified adjacent operator pair, does producer-owned direct tiling reduce full-path memory movement relative to materialization plus layout conversion while staying within the same scratch-capacity budget?","unknowns":["Which adjacent operator pair and tensor layouts are representative.","The producer and consumer tile-granularity constraints.","Scratch capacity and scheduling assumptions.","Whether synchronization prevents tile residency through consumption."],"proposed_test":"Create a matched accounting table for conventional materialization-plus-conversion and direct producer-owned tiling, recording all tensor reads, writes, layout conversions, required synchronization or rematerialization, and peak simultaneously live storage.","failure_criterion":"The direct-tiling path violates the layout contract, exceeds the shared scratch-capacity budget, requires a compensating conversion or rematerialization, or does not lower total accounted memory movement.","success_criterion":"The direct-tiling path has lower total accounted memory movement, requires no compensating conversion or rematerialization, satisfies the consumer layout contract, and remains within the shared scratch-capacity budget."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no operator pair, layout contract, scratch-capacity model, or matched traffic-and-lifetime ledger has been supplied.","change_reason":"No supplied evidence changes the earlier bottleneck; this handoff makes the required matched ledger and early capacity-based kill criterion more explicit.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout-and-scheduling contract, judged by complete-path movement and peak live-buffer demand rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-6D3EFF5ADF0D","estimated_cost_usd":0.014552,"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:56.299Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9D62FB365ADD","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"An unchecked residency-time term is undecidable: expose the e_move and P_retain thresholds before accepting any ledger","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Saving bytes is useful only if the memory that holds the data does not cost more energy while it waits. Two numbers are missing: the energy to move one byte and the power to keep one byte resident. Without them, the same byte saving can look good or bad.","handoff":{"question":"For the proposed producer-owned tiling path applied to a specified adjacent operator pair, does the full energy inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max hold using measured device coefficients and a stated max residency time?","unknowns":["e_move in J/byte for the target device","P_retain in W/byte for the target device","Δt_max residency time for the peak live buffer","Whether M_saved − M_extra can be nonzero for the chosen pair"],"proposed_test":"Specify one adjacent-operator pair and the exact layouts. Measure or state e_move and P_retain for the target device. Compute M_saved and M_extra from the byte ledger for that pair using the original proposal's accounting categories. Record Δt_max for the peak resident buffer in seconds. Evaluate the inequality directly and report whether it is satisfied.","failure_criterion":"The ledger does not state e_move, P_retain, or Δt_max; or e_move / P_retain is unknown; or the inequality fails for the specified pair; or the path violates the layout contract or scratch budget.","success_criterion":"The inequality is evaluated with stated e_move, P_retain, and Δt_max, and the direct-tiling path has Δt_max < (M_saved − M_extra) × (e_move / P_retain), with the shared scratch-capacity constraint still met."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold are the correct dimensional guardrail; low confidence that any numeric threshold can be judged until e_move and P_retain are measured.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before and still offers no time axis for the peak live-buffer residency term. My inequality is unchanged; the current reply only restates which coefficients remain unnamed.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W/byte, Δt_max in seconds, and a nonzero M_saved − M_extra.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-B4346BA681F9","estimated_cost_usd":0.00463122,"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:01:14.859Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-AA4491A5F4D6","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00942,"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:01:29.051Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-C783EF8B7DC6","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"A third consecutive test_design failure means the pipeline itself is now the primary defect, not the physics ledger","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Before we can test whether this memory-saving idea actually saves energy, someone has to plug in real numbers for how much energy moving and holding data costs. The step meant to do that has now failed three times in a row. That's not a random glitch worth ignoring — it's a sign the underlying proposal is still too vague to test, and that needs fixing first.","handoff":{"question":"Does the recurring test_design failure trace to missing numeric anchors (operator pair, device, e_move, P_retain, Δt_max) in the upstream proposal, or to an unrelated output-schema defect independent of physics content?","unknowns":["Whether the test_design failures are schema-validation errors or content-generation failures.","Whether any agent in this chain has committed to a specific device and operator pair yet.","Whether e_move and P_retain values exist anywhere as even rough estimates for the target hardware."],"proposed_test":"Have the next proposal-phase iteration commit to one specific operator pair and device, and supply either measured or explicitly-labeled placeholder numeric values for e_move, P_retain, and Δt_max before test_design is attempted again. Compare whether test_design succeeds with a fully-anchored input versus the prior underspecified inputs.","failure_criterion":"Test_design fails again even with fully-anchored numeric inputs, indicating the defect is a schema or pipeline bug unrelated to physics underspecification and must be escalated separately from the scientific content.","success_criterion":"Test_design produces a complete, non-empty handoff with a stated sampling protocol once the proposal supplies concrete numeric anchors for all three ledger terms."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I cannot distinguish from the outside whether this is a JSON-schema bug in the test_design agent's output pipeline or a genuine inability to design a test for an underdetermined inequality; both produce identical symptoms.","change_reason":"Prior cycles saw one, then two consecutive test_design failures; I was uncertain if this was transient. A third recurrence in the same slot strengthens my inference that the root cause is upstream underspecification rather than a one-off schema glitch, so I'm sharpening the diagnosis into a concrete required repair rather than just flagging the pattern.","current_position":"The contention-dependence confound I raised in cycles 2-3 is still unresolved, but it is now secondary to a three-time-repeated test_design failure. The proposal remains underspecified (no operator pair, device, or numeric ledger values pinned), which I believe is the root cause of the pipeline failures, not a coincidental bug.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-6AB5583F95D9","estimated_cost_usd":0.033974,"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:01:53.216Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-C1E91266B9A6","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Coherence traffic may punish local persistence","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data 'local' sounds efficient until the cores start arguing about who owns the copy; that argument can cost more energy than moving the data in the first place.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent operator pair executed across two distinct cores, does producer-owned tiling increase coherence-related interconnect traffic enough to offset any movement savings?","unknowns":["Which coherence protocol the target device implements","Whether the operator pair crosses core boundaries by default"],"proposed_test":"Instrument a two-core execution of the specified pair once with conventional materialization and once with direct tiling; count coherence events (invalidations, snoops, directory updates) via hardware counters while also logging total bytes transferred.","failure_criterion":"Coherence traffic volume is equal or higher under tiling, or the counters cannot isolate coherence events from ordinary memory traffic.","success_criterion":"The tiling configuration shows measurably lower coherence traffic volume than the baseline for the same functional result."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"coherence_traffic_penalty","uncertainty":"Whether any concrete coherence protocol is already assumed in the prior proposals or remains unstated.","change_reason":"No new evidence contradicts the prior stance; the current roundtable continues to overlook coherence protocol costs.","current_position":"Write-amortization framing may miss an orthogonal failure mode in which local persistence increases rather than decreases total energy via coherence traffic.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-4B9771B1267C","estimated_cost_usd":0.00773125,"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:02:02.522Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","started_at":"2026-09-11T17:00:41.202Z","completed_at":"2026-09-11T17:02:03.217Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-EE2F50D83D1C","cycle_date":"2026-09-10","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-1EC970BF53A5","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07291575,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Instead of saving an intermediate result and fetching it again, let the next calculation use each small piece as soon as it is made. This only helps if keeping both calculations' pieces alive does not overflow the fast workspace or force the same data to be saved anyway.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"Keeping data nearby sounds thrifty, but the chips may start constant ownership arguments that move more bytes through chatter than simply shipping the result once.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E6E685D15A38","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test whether producer-owned activation tiling can eliminate the boundary handoff","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Instead of saving an intermediate result and fetching it again, let the next calculation use each small piece as soon as it is made. This only helps if keeping both calculations' pieces alive does not overflow the fast workspace or force the same data to be saved anyway.","handoff":{"question":"For one specified adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can a producer-owned, consumer-layout activation tile be produced and consumed without intermediate materialization while remaining within the available scratch capacity?","unknowns":["The producer and consumer operator pair and their required layouts.","Tile shape, dependency schedule, and whether consumption can begin before full producer completion.","Available scratch capacity and coexistence with weights, metadata, and other live tensors.","Whether numerical, synchronization, or kernel constraints require a full-tensor boundary."],"proposed_test":"Create a matched per-tile traffic and buffer-lifetime ledger for a baseline materialized handoff and the producer-owned tiled handoff, including layout conversions, reads, writes, dependency overlap, and peak simultaneous live storage.","failure_criterion":"The ledger requires an equivalent materialization or conversion, or peak simultaneous live storage exceeds the stated scratch capacity and causes a spill or schedule break.","success_criterion":"The tiled handoff removes at least one baseline intermediate activation materialization or conversion event in the complete-path ledger and stays within the stated scratch-capacity constraint without a spill."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no operator pair, layout contract, scratch-capacity model, or matched traffic-and-lifetime ledger has been supplied.","change_reason":"The new roundtable framing motivates stating the alternative as producer-owned tiling, but no supplied evidence changes the prior bottleneck or its explicit capacity-based early kill.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout-and-scheduling contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic and peak live-buffer demand rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-4AA167877458","estimated_cost_usd":0.01533,"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:01:03.285Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-51DE2745EA60","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0054285,"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:01:28.609Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-FEBE4DCE2749","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00902025,"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:01:44.096Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9C0F39B62909","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035092,"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:02:11.829Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-8BCFBF3B7F10","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Coherence traffic may punish local persistence","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data nearby sounds thrifty, but the chips may start constant ownership arguments that move more bytes through chatter than simply shipping the result once.","handoff":{"question":"Does producer-owned tiling raise coherence traffic enough to offset its claimed activation savings on a cache-coherent multi-node interconnect?","unknowns":["Exact coherence protocol and directory state","Interconnect topology and latency","Whether tiles can be placed to minimize cross-node sharing"],"proposed_test":"Run the tiled operator pair and a materialized baseline on a coherence-enabled multi-socket platform while logging interconnect coherence messages, total bytes transferred, and peak simultaneous live storage.","failure_criterion":"Coherence volume increases by more than the activation savings, or total movement rises.","success_criterion":"Tiled configuration shows net lower total bytes moved (activations plus coherence) while staying inside stated scratch limits."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"coherence_traffic_penalty","uncertainty":"Whether any concrete coherence protocol is already assumed in the prior proposals or remains unspecified.","change_reason":"No new evidence contradicts the prior stance; the current roundtable continues to overlook coherence as a distinct cost.","current_position":"Write-amortization framing may miss an orthogonal failure mode in which local persistence increases rather than decreases total data movement via required coherence operations.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-5D5F4FAF5C2C","estimated_cost_usd":0.008045,"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:02:24.452Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","started_at":"2026-09-10T17:00:41.737Z","completed_at":"2026-09-10T17:02:25.030Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-25DCAF89D122","cycle_date":"2026-09-09","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-2FFD558C30CE","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":5,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07006952,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"5/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an AI result in the exact form the next operation needs can avoid copying it. But if that choice makes the result occupy scarce fast memory for too long, the system may need even more copying elsewhere. Count all movement and all live memory, not just the avoided copy.","strongest_warning":"Two rounds in a row, the step that was supposed to design a real test crashed with no useful output. Before we praise or attack the underlying memory-management idea, we need to fix why the test-design step keeps failing empty — otherwise we're reviewing a proposal that was never actually turned into a testable plan.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"Keeping data in fast memory to avoid copying might still force the system to constantly check with other chips whether that data is still valid, creating extra chatter that could erase the savings.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-26BEB68EFD38","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Kill the boundary-resident activation handoff with a peak-live-buffer traffic ledger","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an AI result in the exact form the next operation needs can avoid copying it. But if that choice makes the result occupy scarce fast memory for too long, the system may need even more copying elsewhere. Count all movement and all live memory, not just the avoided copy.","handoff":{"question":"For one correctness-equivalent producer–consumer activation boundary, does a conversion-free resident layout reduce complete-path memory traffic without creating an infeasible peak live-buffer requirement?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer boundary is representative of the intended workload","Whether producer and consumer layouts can be made identical without a correctness or compute-cost penalty","Available capacity and allocation policy for the target resident tier","How scheduling changes alter concurrent activation lifetimes"],"proposed_test":"Construct matched traffic-and-lifetime ledgers for a baseline materialize/convert/consume path and a consumer-ready resident-layout path; include reads, writes, conversions, allocation lifetimes, peak concurrent live bytes, and any spill/reload traffic.","failure_criterion":"Total traffic is equal or higher once spills/reloads are counted, or the resident-layout peak live-buffer requirement exceeds the intended tier and requires eviction or schedule degradation.","success_criterion":"The resident-layout ledger shows lower total bytes moved and no spill/reload caused by its longer allocation lifetime, while its peak live-buffer demand fits the intended tier."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal; peak live-buffer demand remains the explicit early kill.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic and buffer-lifetime effects rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-77852635268A","estimated_cost_usd":0.014492,"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:58.811Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-A942CF1A4CD7","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00552552,"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:01:24.302Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-317E7A215714","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00902775,"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:01:37.170Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-55CC7446654D","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Two consecutive silent test_design failures is itself the finding — stop re-proposing until the schema/spec gap is diagnosed","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Two rounds in a row, the step that was supposed to design a real test crashed with no useful output. Before we praise or attack the underlying memory-management idea, we need to fix why the test-design step keeps failing empty — otherwise we're reviewing a proposal that was never actually turned into a testable plan.","handoff":{"question":"Can a test_design agent produce a non-empty sampling protocol for the peak-live-buffer traffic ledger proposal that explicitly conditions e_move, P_retain, and Δt measurements on named bus/memory contention regimes?","unknowns":["Whether the two prior failures share a common root cause (schema strictness) or are independent substantive failures","Whether contention-state variation in e_move/P_retain is large enough on real hardware to matter, independent of whether it's specified","Whether the peak-live-buffer proposal itself needs restructuring to make contention conditioning expressible at all"],"proposed_test":"Require the next test_design attempt to declare at minimum two contention regimes (e.g., idle-bus baseline and saturated-bus worst-case) and specify, for each, how e_move, P_retain, and Δt would be sampled or bounded, before any traffic-ledger comparison is proposed.","failure_criterion":"The test_design output either fails again with invalid_model_output, or succeeds schematically but omits contention-regime conditioning, in which case the confound remains unaddressed regardless of pipeline success.","success_criterion":"The test_design output is schema-valid and includes at least two distinct, named contention regimes with a sampling or bounding method for each of e_move, P_retain, and Δt."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I still don't know if these failures are schema-validation errors unrelated to the physics content, or genuine inability to specify contention-conditioned sampling; that ambiguity is now the dominant unknown blocking progress.","change_reason":"Prior cycle I flagged one failed test_design phase and was uncertain whether it was trivial or substantive. This cycle shows the same failure pattern repeating, which shifts my emphasis from 'the confound needs a sampling protocol' to 'the pipeline needs to demonstrate it can even produce one before further physics critique is productive.'","current_position":"The contention-dependence confound (e_move, P_retain, Δt varying with bus/memory contention) I raised in cycles 2-3 remains unresolved, but the more urgent defect is now procedural: two consecutive downstream-phase failures mean no artifact has ever attempted to operationalize a sampling protocol for it.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-35AFEFF8958C","estimated_cost_usd":0.032118,"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:02:00.988Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-67B2FC3B7036","phase":"orthogonal_alternative","sequence":5,"agent_id":"xai-crystalram-hosted-orthogonal-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Orthogonal Scout","status":"published","requested_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","actual_model":"spacexai/grok-4.3","title":"Resident layouts may spike coherence traffic on the interconnect","evidence_label":"hypothesis","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data in fast memory to avoid copying might still force the system to constantly check with other chips whether that data is still valid, creating extra chatter that could erase the savings.","handoff":{"question":"For a producer-consumer activation boundary, does enforcing a resident layout increase directory or snoop traffic enough to offset avoided writes?","unknowns":["Whether the target interconnect uses directory or broadcast snooping","How many remote agents touch the resident buffer"],"proposed_test":"Run the same workload with and without resident layout while counting coherence messages separately from data bytes moved; compare net movement under two contention regimes.","failure_criterion":"No measurable rise in coherence messages, or net traffic still lower despite any increase.","success_criterion":"Coherence message count rises measurably and the net traffic (data + coherence) is higher for the resident case in at least one regime."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"coherence_traffic_penalty","uncertainty":"Whether any concrete coherence protocol is already assumed in the prior proposals or remains unspecified.","change_reason":"No new evidence contradicts the prior stance; the current roundtable continues to overlook coherence as a distinct cost.","current_position":"Write-amortization framing may miss an orthogonal failure mode in which local persistence increases rather than decreases total data movement via required coherence operations.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-0B8543235CF0","estimated_cost_usd":0.00890625,"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:02:18.157Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","started_at":"2026-09-09T17:00:41.173Z","completed_at":"2026-09-09T17:02:18.807Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-1FE4FC127606","cycle_date":"2026-09-08","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-52F30451B4D5","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07303921,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Skipping a data reformat step helps only if the data can be handed directly from one operation to the next without keeping an extra copy alive. Count the whole trip, not just the skipped step.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Skipping a copy step saves energy only if the skipped copying work is bigger than the cost of keeping the data alive for however long it sits waiting. The proposal counts skipped bytes but not waiting time, and without the waiting time you can't know if it actually saves energy.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-8F4022E4102D","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Kill the boundary-resident activation handoff with a peak-live-buffer traffic ledger","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Skipping a data reformat step helps only if the data can be handed directly from one operation to the next without keeping an extra copy alive. Count the whole trip, not just the skipped step.","handoff":{"question":"For one chosen producer–consumer activation boundary, does a shared-layout, conversion-free handoff lower complete-path activation traffic without increasing peak live-buffer demand enough to create staging or spill traffic?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer boundary has compatible candidate layouts.","Baseline and candidate tile/layout specifications.","Buffer capacities, allocation lifetimes, and scheduling assumptions.","Whether producer epilogue work can emit the consumer layout without a hidden reread or rewrite."],"proposed_test":"Create matched baseline and shared-layout traffic ledgers for one boundary, including producer output, conversion or epilogue work, consumer reads, staging buffers, and peak simultaneous activation storage.","failure_criterion":"Total bytes moved are unchanged or higher, or the shared-layout case requires an additional staging/materialization buffer or causes spill/eviction due to higher peak live-buffer demand.","success_criterion":"The shared-layout ledger has lower total activation-related bytes moved than baseline and no additional staging, spill, eviction, or materialization caused by its peak live-buffer requirement."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal; this handoff makes peak live-buffer demand the explicit early kill condition.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic and buffer-lifetime effects rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-9E5296F473C7","estimated_cost_usd":0.014692,"created_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","completed_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:38.601Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D86D5E996916","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"A shared-layout handoff cannot even be judged without bounding peak live-buffer residency time","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Skipping a copy step saves energy only if the skipped copying work is bigger than the cost of keeping the data alive for however long it sits waiting. The proposal counts skipped bytes but not waiting time, and without the waiting time you can't know if it actually saves energy.","handoff":{"question":"For the chosen producer–consumer boundary, what is the worst-case peak live-buffer residency time Δt_max under the candidate shared-layout protocol, expressed in seconds and derived from a machine-checkable scheduling trace rather than an assumed average?","unknowns":["P_retain in W/byte (or W/buffer) for the exact memory tier holding the live buffer","e_move in J/byte for each producer write, conversion, and consumer read on the candidate hardware","Whether the producer–consumer boundary can be instrumented to yield true last-write and last-read timestamps per buffer","Whether residency time is scheduler-determined and therefore variable enough that worst-case must replace average","The numerical values of M_saved and M_extra from the actual baseline versus shared-layout ledgers"],"proposed_test":"Instrument the candidate shared-layout boundary to record, for every activation buffer, the timestamp of producer last-write and the timestamp of consumer last-read, then compute the maximum overlap residency time across all buffers in the ledger. Compare Δt_max against the threshold Δt_threshold = (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move / P_retain, using the separately measured e_move in joules per byte and P_retain in watts for the chosen memory tier. The protocol passes only if Δt_max < Δt_threshold with a reported safety margin.","failure_criterion":"Any of these makes the handoff unproven: Δt_max is unbounded under realistic scheduling, no measured e_move or P_retain is supplied, the inequality Δt_max < Δt_threshold fails, or the trace cannot distinguish producer last-write from consumer last-read for any buffer.","success_criterion":"Δt_max is bounded, derivable from the trace, and strictly less than Δt_threshold when using explicitly measured e_move and P_retain values; the complete-path energy ledger is then lower for the shared-layout case."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the energy inequality and the residency-time threshold are the correct dimensional guardrail; low confidence that the next cycle will supply measured e_move and P_retain values rather than another byte-traffic ledger.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before and still offers no time axis for the peak live-buffer residency term. The inequality is unchanged; only the explicit demand that Δt be a machine-checkable worst-case trace value is sharpened.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_max, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W/byte or equivalent, and Δt_max derived from a scheduling trace as the worst-case peak live-buffer residency time.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-4329D56E4ABC","estimated_cost_usd":0.00268221,"created_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","completed_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:58.950Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-AF76EE37C573","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018843,"created_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","completed_at":"2026-09-08T17:01:14.667Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-0AEFBE536738","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.036822,"created_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","completed_at":"2026-09-08T17:01:42.195Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","started_at":"2026-09-08T17:00:21.174Z","completed_at":"2026-09-08T17:01:42.771Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-4B590EB51C21","cycle_date":"2026-09-07","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-77861900BBCA","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07050784,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next step can use it as-is; if it must be rearranged or forces other data out, the supposed saved trip may not be saved at all.","strongest_warning":"The step that was supposed to turn a promising equation into an actual measurable test crashed and produced nothing. Before anyone runs a real experiment, someone needs to specify under what traffic conditions (busy bus vs. idle bus) the key numbers get measured — otherwise a single test at one arbitrary condition could mislead everyone into thinking the answer is universal.","equation_or_unit_check":"Saying “this approach moves fewer bytes” is not the same as saying “this approach uses less energy.” Moving bytes costs energy per byte, and keeping a result resident costs energy the longer it sits there. There is a time limit after which keeping an activation nearby costs more than moving it; the prior proposal never measures that time or the per-byte energy cost, so its comparison cannot tell us whether the supposedly cheaper path is actually cheaper.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-8AD59E247349","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Measure complete-path traffic for a conversion-free activation handoff","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next step can use it as-is; if it must be rearranged or forces other data out, the supposed saved trip may not be saved at all.","handoff":{"question":"For one defined producer–consumer activation boundary, does a conversion-free layout contract reduce total data movement after accounting for all copies, conversions, and residency side effects?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer boundary and tensor layouts are representative.","Whether the consumer can directly consume the producer layout.","Whether residency changes cache or scratchpad replacement behavior.","Whether scheduling constraints add transfers or extend activation lifetime."],"proposed_test":"Construct matched baseline and direct-handoff traffic ledgers for one specified boundary and compare total movement across producer writes, consumer reads, format conversions, staging, eviction/refill, and synchronization-associated transfers.","failure_criterion":"The direct-handoff ledger is equal to or higher than baseline because required conversion, staging, eviction/refill, or synchronization-associated traffic offsets the avoided materialization.","success_criterion":"The direct-handoff ledger is lower than the baseline ledger without requiring an added conversion or inducing offsetting residency-related traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic and buffer-lifetime effects rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-D1647E65C7FF","estimated_cost_usd":0.01407,"created_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","completed_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:38.522Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-36F3B06CEB6B","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The handoff decision still changes sign at a dwell-time threshold, but the ledger as proposed has no time axis","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Saying “this approach moves fewer bytes” is not the same as saying “this approach uses less energy.” Moving bytes costs energy per byte, and keeping a result resident costs energy the longer it sits there. There is a time limit after which keeping an activation nearby costs more than moving it; the prior proposal never measures that time or the per-byte energy cost, so its comparison cannot tell us whether the supposedly cheaper path is actually cheaper.","handoff":{"question":"For the specified producer–consumer boundary, what is the measured energy ratio e_move/P_retain and the measured dwell time Δt, so the inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt can be evaluated in joules rather than in raw bytes?","unknowns":["Measured e_move for the target device, in J/byte.","Measured P_retain per retained byte for the relevant memory level.","The ratio e_move/P_retain and its units of seconds per byte moved.","The measured dwell time Δt for the exact producer–consumer boundary.","Whether M_saved and M_extra from the byte ledger are measured or estimated."],"proposed_test":"For one fixed boundary and matched layouts, measure e_move (J/byte) and P_retain (W/byte) on the target device, record M_saved and M_extra from the existing traffic ledger, and measure Δt from producer write to final consumption. Evaluate the dwell-time threshold Δt_max = (M_saved − M_extra) × (e_move/P_retain) and report whether the observed Δt satisfies Δt < Δt_max. Repeat across at least three representative producer–consumer boundaries.","failure_criterion":"The direct-handoff byte ledger is lower, yet the measured Δt exceeds Δt_max but Δt_max is unreported or the decision was still made on bytes alone. Equivalently, Δt and e_move/P_retain cannot be separated from device data, so the dwell-time threshold remains unevaluable and the handoff decision is unsupported.","success_criterion":"The reported Δt_max is a finite positive number with units of seconds derived only from measured e_move, P_retain, M_saved, and M_extra, and it agrees with the device data in a way that makes the direct-handoff energy comparison internally consistent."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold; low confidence that any numeric threshold can be stated before e_move and P_retain are measured for the target device.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before, and it still uses byte traffic as the primary success criterion without supplying measured e_move, P_retain, e_move/P_retain, or Δt. The dimensional inequality and dwell-time threshold remain unchanged.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W/byte, Δt in s, and a machine-checkable dwell-time threshold Δt_max = (M_saved − M_extra) × (e_move/P_retain) in s.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-BBDDFDC95B5E","estimated_cost_usd":0.00298584,"created_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","completed_at":"2026-09-07T17:01:05.047Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-80CDB41B2830","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018888,"created_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","completed_at":"2026-09-07T17:01:20.544Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-F8B6365E9BE7","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Test-design phase failed silently; the recurring confound was never operationalized into a sampling protocol before that failure","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The step that was supposed to turn a promising equation into an actual measurable test crashed and produced nothing. Before anyone runs a real experiment, someone needs to specify under what traffic conditions (busy bus vs. idle bus) the key numbers get measured — otherwise a single test at one arbitrary condition could mislead everyone into thinking the answer is universal.","handoff":{"question":"Can a test_design handoff for the e_move/P_retain/Δt inequality specify a named contention regime (or explicit multi-regime sweep) rather than leaving sampling conditions unstated, and can it do so without failing output validation as the prior attempt did?","unknowns":["Why the prior test_design attempt failed output validation — schema mismatch, missing required field, or malformed content.","Whether contention regime should be defined by bus utilization percentage, queue depth, or some other observable.","Whether a single-regime test is acceptable as a first bounded step or whether multi-regime sweep is required before any canonical claim.","Whether CrystalRAM hardware exposes a measurable contention-state signal at all, or whether this must be inferred indirectly."],"proposed_test":"Draft a test_design artifact that (1) names at least one concrete bus/memory contention regime (e.g., idle, moderate, saturated) under which e_move and P_retain will be sampled, (2) specifies that Δt is measured under the same regime label, and (3) reports Δt_max separately per regime rather than as a single pooled value; validate the artifact against output schema before publishing.","failure_criterion":"The resubmitted handoff either fails validation again, or passes validation but reports e_move, P_retain, and Δt without any stated contention regime or sweep, reproducing the original confound under a different label.","success_criterion":"The resubmitted handoff includes at least one explicitly named contention regime tied to the e_move/P_retain/Δt measurements and passes output validation (no failure_code)."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I don't know whether the test_design failure was a trivial schema error or a substantive inability to specify a sampling protocol; those have very different implications for how quickly this can be repaired.","change_reason":"Prior cycles evaluated substantive proposals; this cycle's upstream artifact is an empty failed handoff, so my finding shifts from 'the inequality lacks a sampling protocol' to 'the inequality still lacks a sampling protocol AND the phase meant to supply one produced nothing usable' — a narrower, sharper claim about process failure compounding the unresolved physics gap.","current_position":"The contention-dependence defect (e_move, P_retain, Δt varying with bus/memory contention state) that I raised in cycles 2 and 3 was never resolved because the test_design phase that should have addressed it failed outright with invalid_model_output. The defect is therefore neither fixed nor disproven — it is simply unaddressed, compounded by a process failure.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-C5E72286890F","estimated_cost_usd":0.034564,"created_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","completed_at":"2026-09-07T17:01:45.986Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","started_at":"2026-09-07T17:00:21.279Z","completed_at":"2026-09-07T17:01:46.736Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-B21696E7E03C","cycle_date":"2026-09-06","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-AE482DF90F3F","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07080432,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Do not count a saved write unless the next operation can use the data exactly as it was produced. Otherwise the system may simply move the same data later in a different form.","strongest_warning":"The proposed test checks whether keeping data in fast memory beats moving it, using two 'cost numbers' (cost to move, cost to hold). But those two numbers change depending on how busy the memory system is at that moment — and the test as written measures them just once. That's like timing a commute once during rush hour and once at 2am and assuming the number that changes the outcome is fixed.","equation_or_unit_check":"Saving a write is not automatically a win. Data that sits still in fast memory slowly spends energy just to stay there. If the data sits long enough, that standing cost can exceed the cost of the move you saved. So before we credit a saved write, we need to measure both how much energy a move costs per byte and how much energy it costs per second to keep data waiting, then compare those numbers.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D301D0833744","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Treat activation handoff as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout contract","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Do not count a saved write unless the next operation can use the data exactly as it was produced. Otherwise the system may simply move the same data later in a different form.","handoff":{"question":"For one chosen adjacent operator pair, does a shared producer–consumer activation layout reduce complete-path memory traffic without forcing a later conversion or reducing scheduling concurrency?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and layouts are representative.","Whether producer-side packing can be fused without extra traffic.","Whether consumer access constraints permit the same layout.","Whether buffer lifetime creates capacity pressure or scheduling stalls."],"proposed_test":"Prepare a matched byte-traffic and buffer-lifetime ledger for baseline conversion/staging versus direct producer–consumer handoff, holding tensor shape, precision, placement assumptions, and schedule constant.","failure_criterion":"Total traffic is not lower, a required conversion or staging copy reappears, or longer buffer residency reduces achievable concurrency.","success_criterion":"The direct-handoff ledger has strictly lower total data movement and no added conversion or staging step, while its buffer lifetime permits the baseline level of concurrency."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic and buffer-lifetime effects rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-22FF11053A15","estimated_cost_usd":0.014156,"created_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","completed_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:36.018Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-534CCAEBB2E6","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The handoff ledger still lacks a machine-checkable dwell-time threshold","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Saving a write is not automatically a win. Data that sits still in fast memory slowly spends energy just to stay there. If the data sits long enough, that standing cost can exceed the cost of the move you saved. So before we credit a saved write, we need to measure both how much energy a move costs per byte and how much energy it costs per second to keep data waiting, then compare those numbers.","handoff":{"question":"For one chosen adjacent operator pair, what is the measured threshold Δt_threshold = [(M_saved − M_extra) × e_move] / P_retain, and is the observed boundary-resident Δt smaller than it by more than the measurement error?","unknowns":["Which adjacent operator pair and layouts are representative.","Measured e_move in J/byte for the target hardware.","Measured P_retain in W for the boundary-resident data at the chosen precision.","Whether e_move and P_retain are constant over the observed window.","The actual buffer dwell time Δt under realistic scheduling."],"proposed_test":"Measure e_move and P_retain on the target hardware for one chosen adjacent operator pair, then run the byte-traffic and buffer-lifetime ledger from the proposal and report Δt_threshold and observed Δt alongside total data movement and any conversion step.","failure_criterion":"The test fails if e_move or P_retain is missing, if Δt_threshold is not computed or reported with error, if observed Δt_resident ≥ Δt_threshold within error, or if total traffic is not lower or a conversion reappears.","success_criterion":"The test reports e_move and P_retain with units and measurement error, computes Δt_threshold, reports observed Δt_resident, and shows Δt_resident < Δt_threshold with total traffic strictly lower and no inserted conversion."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold; low confidence that the next-cycle measurement will supply e_move and P_retain with usable error bounds.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before, and it still uses byte traffic as the primary success criterion without supplying measured e_move, P_retain, or Δt. No new device value or empirical threshold has been provided, so my public position remains unchanged.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W, Δt in s, and a machine-checkable threshold Δt_threshold = [(M_saved − M_extra) × e_move] / P_retain, where failure is declared when observed Δt ≥ Δt_threshold within error.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-0D32DFAA3F2B","estimated_cost_usd":0.00278182,"created_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","completed_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:57.229Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-3EA4E19BE51B","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0187905,"created_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","completed_at":"2026-09-06T17:01:11.394Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-47AE0D434FD8","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Same confound, third form: e_move and P_retain are themselves functions of the contention state Δt is supposed to gate on","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The proposed test checks whether keeping data in fast memory beats moving it, using two 'cost numbers' (cost to move, cost to hold). But those two numbers change depending on how busy the memory system is at that moment — and the test as written measures them just once. That's like timing a commute once during rush hour and once at 2am and assuming the number that changes the outcome is fixed.","handoff":{"question":"Do e_move (J/byte) and P_retain (W) vary materially across the range of co-resident memory contention states that occur during a realistic ledger run for one chosen adjacent operator pair, and if so, does that variation flip the Δt_resident < Δt_threshold verdict?","unknowns":["Whether the target hardware exposes contention-state telemetry at the granularity needed to bin e_move/P_retain measurements.","How wide the realistic contention range actually is during representative workloads for the chosen operator pair.","Whether the two failed test_design attempts already tried and abandoned a similar instrumentation approach for undisclosed reasons."],"proposed_test":"Instrument the byte-traffic/dwell-time ledger to record contention state (co-resident SRAM/Scratch occupancy, interconnect queue depth) at every move and retain event; bin e_move and P_retain measurements by contention bin instead of averaging them; recompute Δt_threshold separately per bin.","failure_criterion":"The inequality's verdict flips sign between low- and high-contention bins, meaning a single-point measurement of e_move/P_retain (as currently proposed) can produce a false pass or false fail depending on sampling luck.","success_criterion":"Δt_resident < Δt_threshold holds in every sampled contention bin, or the variation in e_move/P_retain across bins is small enough (report the spread) that a single-point measurement would not have changed the verdict."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I don't know the actual magnitude of contention-driven variation in e_move or P_retain for real CrystalRAM hardware, so I can't say whether this is a fatal defect or a minor correction; that is precisely the missing measurement.","change_reason":"DeepSeek's dwell-time proposal added rigor by naming e_move and P_retain explicitly, but neither prior handoff nor this one specifies how those two rates are sampled with respect to contention state, so the underlying confound I flagged on 2026-08-29/30 persists in a new location rather than being resolved.","current_position":"Unchanged across four review cycles: the recurring defect is treating a contention-dependent quantity — first SRAM occupancy, then layout compatibility, then dwell time Δt, now the input rates e_move and P_retain themselves — as fixed scalars rather than swept variables. The same confound has migrated one level deeper into the inequality but has not been closed.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-B1EC99A9B205","estimated_cost_usd":0.035076,"created_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","completed_at":"2026-09-06T17:01:37.933Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","started_at":"2026-09-06T17:00:21.169Z","completed_at":"2026-09-06T17:01:38.673Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-23469BE6D5E3","cycle_date":"2026-09-05","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-93CAF876DAE6","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07058438,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data close to where it was made helps only if the next step can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged first, the avoided trip may simply happen under another name.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Not moving data is only half the story. If a value waits in memory long enough, the energy used to keep it there can be bigger than the energy the trip would have cost. So the real test is not just 'fewer bytes moved,' but 'the time it sits there stays under a calculated limit.'","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-328FDFB3CA85","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Treat activation handoff as a conversion-free producer–consumer layout contract","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data close to where it was made helps only if the next step can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged first, the avoided trip may simply happen under another name.","handoff":{"question":"Can one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair use a shared resident activation layout with lower complete-path memory movement than a baseline that materializes and converts an intermediate?","unknowns":["Which adjacent operator pair is representative enough to test first.","What layouts each producer and consumer can natively emit or consume.","Whether capacity and scheduling keep the shared representation resident until consumption.","Whether output-semantic requirements constrain layout or precision choices."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched traffic ledger for one adjacent operator pair under baseline materialize-and-convert and shared-layout handoff, counting producer output, conversion or staging traffic, consumer reads, and spill or eviction traffic.","failure_criterion":"The shared-layout case has equal or greater complete-path traffic, requires an intervening materialized conversion, or loses its apparent benefit through layout-induced inefficiency or spill traffic.","success_criterion":"The shared-layout case preserves the required output semantics and has lower total bytes moved across the complete handoff path without introducing compensating spill traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-4FA69358DD3C","estimated_cost_usd":0.013778,"created_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","completed_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:36.402Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E604DBD1E249","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Byte traffic cannot decide the handoff; the missing term is retention energy per elapsed dwell time","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Not moving data is only half the story. If a value waits in memory long enough, the energy used to keep it there can be bigger than the energy the trip would have cost. So the real test is not just 'fewer bytes moved,' but 'the time it sits there stays under a calculated limit.'","handoff":{"question":"For one measured adjacent producer–consumer pair on a specified device, does the measured dwell time Δt stay below ((M_saved − M_extra) × e_move) / P_retain, with all four quantities reported and with units resolved to seconds?","unknowns":["Measured e_move for the actual device and movement class.","Measured P_retain for the retained activation layout, including refresh or standby overhead.","Measured Δt distribution for the adjacent producer–consumer pair.","Whether M_saved and M_extra can be separated from compiler, allocator, and cache effects.","Whether output-semantic requirements force an intermediate layout that raises M_extra."],"proposed_test":"For one adjacent operator pair, record a matched ledger: M_saved, M_extra, measured e_move per byte, measured P_retain for the retained layout, and wall-clock Δt from producer completion to consumer completion. Compute both the byte-count comparison and the energy inequality from those measurements. Run enough repetitions to report mean values with confidence intervals and note any variance in Δt due to scheduling.","failure_criterion":"The measured Δt meets or exceeds ((M_saved − M_extra) × e_move) / P_retain, or M_extra ≥ M_saved, or the test cannot report measured e_move, P_retain, Δt, M_saved, and M_extra without editorial imputation.","success_criterion":"The measured shared-layout case preserves the required output semantics, has M_saved > M_extra, and satisfies (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt, with all quantities expressed in coherent SI units and the inequality holding at the reported confidence level."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality and the derived dwell-time threshold; low confidence in any specific numeric result because the required measured coefficients are absent from the record.","change_reason":"The received proposal is the same adjacent-pair byte-ledger design as before, and it still uses byte traffic as the primary success criterion without supplying measured e_move, P_retain, or Δt. My prior statement used P_static and a now-spelled-out P_retain; I have expressed the same inequality and added the explicit maximum-dwell-time form as the machine-checkable threshold. No new measured evidence has changed the conclusion.","current_position":"A byte-traffic-only criterion cannot grade a producer–consumer handoff. The decision requires measured evaluation of (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt, with e_move in J/byte, P_retain in W, Δt in s, and a machine-checkable maximum allowable dwell time of ((M_saved − M_extra) × e_move) / P_retain. The proposal must add Δt and the energy coefficients to its pass condition or remain an ungraded ledger.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-A22A3106B3AD","estimated_cost_usd":0.00302238,"created_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","completed_at":"2026-09-05T17:01:03.155Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-5D86C5C14D83","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018858,"created_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","completed_at":"2026-09-05T17:01:18.864Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-AB062A3E744E","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.034926,"created_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","completed_at":"2026-09-05T17:01:44.055Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","started_at":"2026-09-05T17:00:21.997Z","completed_at":"2026-09-05T17:01:44.639Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-8DF6BF9A9E1F","cycle_date":"2026-09-04","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-97EBF85DDF1B","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07120697,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an intermediate result close to where it was made helps only if the next computation can use it as-is; otherwise the saved trip may simply reappear as repacking or waiting.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"A shorter path for moving data is not automatically cheaper: keeping data parked close by costs power the whole time it waits. Before we can call a shortcut a win, we need to measure both how much data movement it avoids and how long the data has to wait, and then compare those two costs in the same units.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-B8F4FA7D0F95","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Make conversion-free activation handoff an explicit producer–consumer layout contract","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an intermediate result close to where it was made helps only if the next computation can use it as-is; otherwise the saved trip may simply reappear as repacking or waiting.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent operator pair, can a producer-emitted activation layout be consumed directly before eviction, with lower complete-path memory movement than ordinary materialization?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor layout are representative.","Whether Prism Scratch capacity and lifetime can preserve the activation until consumption.","Whether the consumer supports the producer layout directly.","How scheduling and synchronization should be represented in the traffic ledger."],"proposed_test":"Build a matched, complete producer-to-consumer traffic ledger for conventional materialization and boundary-resident handoff, counting reads, writes, layout transforms, metadata movement, synchronization, and any capacity-driven spill/reload.","failure_criterion":"The handoff path has equal or higher total counted movement, or it requires a conversion, spill/reload, or synchronization dependency that removes the proposed advantage.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident path has lower total counted movement and requires no uncounted conversion or spill/reload before the consumer completes."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-2805111C7A27","estimated_cost_usd":0.014246,"created_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","completed_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:36.449Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-06CC11A779E2","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The handoff ledger still needs a dwell-time threshold, not just a movement audit","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"A shorter path for moving data is not automatically cheaper: keeping data parked close by costs power the whole time it waits. Before we can call a shortcut a win, we need to measure both how much data movement it avoids and how long the data has to wait, and then compare those two costs in the same units.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent operator pair, what is the measured Δt_resident, and does it stay below the crossing threshold Δt_resident* = (M_saved × e_move) / P_retain where all terms have explicit units?","unknowns":["The numerical value of P_retain for one retained activation in Prism Scratch.","The value of e_move for the relevant memory path in joules per byte.","Whether Δt_resident is stable across the target operator pair and workload.","Whether the simulation exposes tag, bank, or refresh costs that raised P_retain beyond simple leakage."],"proposed_test":"Instrument a single producer–consumer pair in simulation and measure the wall-clock dwell time Δt_resident, the net avoided movement M_saved in bytes, the inferred boundary retention power P_retain in watts, and the movement-energy coefficient e_move in joules per byte, then compare the resulting Δt_resident* against the measured dwell time.","failure_criterion":"The simulation cannot supply either Δt_resident or P_retain, or the measured dwell time is equal to or greater than Δt_resident*, meaning the boundary-resident copy costs at least as much energy as spilling and reloading even though its byte ledger may appear lower.","success_criterion":"The measurement reports a positive, finite Δt_resident* and confirms that measured Δt_resident < Δt_resident* with at least one clearly stated uncertainty bound, so retained energy is lower than spill-reload energy under the stated operating range."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality and the derived threshold, but low confidence that the next-cycle measurement can actually supply P_retain and Δt_resident with bounded uncertainty.","change_reason":"The new proposal still uses byte traffic as its primary success criterion and does not supply a dwell-time threshold. My prior statement omitted the explicit role of P_retain and Δt_resident as measured quantities required for a checkable crossing condition; no new measurement or canonical evidence has been provided to overturn the previous position.","current_position":"The boundary-resident handoff cannot be graded by byte traffic alone. The decision requires evaluating the energy inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_retain × Δt_resident, with e_move in joules per byte, P_retain in watts, Δt_resident in seconds, and the derived dwell-time threshold Δt_resident* = (M_saved × e_move) / P_retain acting as the machine-checkable crossing condition.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-00477055BE94","estimated_cost_usd":0.00272397,"created_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","completed_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:57.205Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-C33A22511D61","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018801,"created_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","completed_at":"2026-09-04T17:01:10.793Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-40E7151BC20A","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035436,"created_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","completed_at":"2026-09-04T17:01:36.849Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","started_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:21.191Z","completed_at":"2026-09-04T17:01:37.452Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-949C5688EF88","cycle_date":"2026-09-03","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-765CAF57065D","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06972952,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a result where the next operation can use it may save a trip to memory—but only if preparing and holding it there does not cost the same trip somewhere else.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting how many bytes a design avoids moving is like counting how many trips a delivery driver saves. The missing question is how long the driver has to stand around holding the package: holding it briefly saves gas, but holding it too long costs more in wages than the saved fuel. The direct handoff idea needs three numbers—energy to move one byte, leakage power while holding it, and time spent holding—before anyone can tell whether it helps or hurts.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-1DBB62733800","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Make conversion-free activation handoff an explicit producer–consumer layout contract","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result where the next operation can use it may save a trip to memory—but only if preparing and holding it there does not cost the same trip somewhere else.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can a shared tile layout and bounded residency lifetime reduce complete-path memory movement relative to a conventional materialized activation handoff?","unknowns":["Which operator pair has compatible producer and consumer layout requirements.","How long the activation must remain resident before consumption.","Whether scheduler constraints require hidden copies or force eviction.","Whether reduced bytes translate into useful latency or energy improvement."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched byte-traffic ledger for a baseline materialized handoff and a conversion-free contracted handoff, including producer output, consumer input, any layout conversion, synchronization copies, and capacity-driven eviction or reload traffic.","failure_criterion":"The full ledger finds that conversion, synchronization, or capacity side effects eliminate the traffic reduction, or the consumer cannot directly consume the retained representation.","success_criterion":"The contracted handoff has lower total counted memory movement without adding a required conversion or compensating eviction/reload path."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-9229776933B8","estimated_cost_usd":0.013432,"created_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","completed_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:30.644Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-411E7526C11E","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The direct handoff still needs e_move, P_static, and Δt as checkable coefficients before it can be graded","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Counting how many bytes a design avoids moving is like counting how many trips a delivery driver saves. The missing question is how long the driver has to stand around holding the package: holding it briefly saves gas, but holding it too long costs more in wages than the saved fuel. The direct handoff idea needs three numbers—energy to move one byte, leakage power while holding it, and time spent holding—before anyone can tell whether it helps or hurts.","handoff":{"question":"For one concrete adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, do the module-level coefficients e_move, P_static, and Δt produce a machine-checkable energy inequality that separates a short-lived handoff win from a long-lived leakage loss?","unknowns":["Which concrete producer–consumer pair will supply e_move, P_static, and Δt.","Whether P_static is measurable at the boundary tile alone or requires a module-level aggregate.","Whether the residency lifetime Δt is bounded by scheduling guarantees or unbounded in practice.","Whether e_move depends on the position of the boundary tile relative to compute units."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched energy ledger for one adjacent producer–consumer pair under two regimes: byte counts only, and byte counts multiplied by a stated e_move on one side versus P_static × Δt on the other. Require the submitter to report e_move in J/byte, P_static in watts, and a bounded Δt in seconds for the boundary-resident activation. Compute Δt* = (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move / P_static, and check whether the stated Δt is below, at, or above Δt*. The ledger must include producer output, consumer input, any layout conversion, synchronization copies, and capacity side effects as byte movements.","failure_criterion":"The reported e_move, P_static, or Δt is missing, not SI, or not physically plausible; the units do not cancel; or P_static × Δt ≥ (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move at the stated Δt, in which case the handoff fails the energy test even if byte traffic is lower.","success_criterion":"The submitter reports all three coefficients with SI units, the units cancel to joules on both sides, and the resulting inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_static × Δt holds with explicit numeric values at the stated Δt."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality and in the need for explicit coefficients, but low confidence that the required module-level coefficients will be reported with the producer–consumer pair.","change_reason":"The received design proposal still uses byte traffic as its primary success criterion and does not supply e_move, P_static, or Δt as checkable coefficients. No new measurement or canonical evidence is present in this roundtable seed, so the dimensional inequality and the requirement for explicit coefficients remain unchanged.","current_position":"The boundary-resident handoff cannot be graded by byte traffic alone. The decision requires evaluating the energy inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_static × Δt, with e_move in J/byte, P_static in watts, and Δt in seconds.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-CFD2EA62713C","estimated_cost_usd":0.00281402,"created_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","completed_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:54.715Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-CC491AEF67F2","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0188295,"created_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","completed_at":"2026-09-03T17:02:11.380Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-B91BE2CA745F","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.034654,"created_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","completed_at":"2026-09-03T17:02:37.516Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","started_at":"2026-09-03T17:01:14.815Z","completed_at":"2026-09-03T17:02:38.106Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-3D047D08ADD7","cycle_date":"2026-09-02","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-9236636B581C","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07391437,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data near where it was made helps only when the next computation can use it exactly as-is. If the data must be rearranged before use, the supposed saving may disappear.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Moving less data is useful only if the energy saved by avoiding movement is larger than the energy spent holding the data in place. If a test counts only bytes and ignores how long the data sits still, it can miss the case where the quieter path actually spends more energy.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-A53F325789F2","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test whether a conversion-free activation handoff survives the next operator boundary","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data near where it was made helps only when the next computation can use it exactly as-is. If the data must be rearranged before use, the supposed saving may disappear.","handoff":{"question":"For one specified adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, does a boundary-resident activation representation eliminate net memory movement after all required reads, writes, layout conversions, staging copies, and spills are counted?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor layout should define the first bounded case.","Whether producer and consumer layout requirements can be made compatible without changing computation semantics.","Whether boundary-resident capacity and scheduling avoid spills.","Which memory boundary is the decision-relevant accounting boundary."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched, complete-path byte-movement ledger for a baseline handoff and a conversion-free boundary-resident handoff for one adjacent operator pair; enumerate producer output writes, consumer input reads, conversions, staging copies, and capacity-driven spills in both paths.","failure_criterion":"The ledger identifies a required conversion, staging movement, or spill that eliminates the net byte-movement reduction relative to the baseline.","success_criterion":"The handoff path has fewer total bytes moved across the chosen memory boundary, with no additional required conversion or spill that is excluded from the accounting."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-738B98A13D26","estimated_cost_usd":0.014438,"created_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:29.098Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7DA80A97B735","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The byte-movement ledger still lacks the energy-times-dwell term that decides the handoff","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Moving less data is useful only if the energy saved by avoiding movement is larger than the energy spent holding the data in place. If a test counts only bytes and ignores how long the data sits still, it can miss the case where the quieter path actually spends more energy.","handoff":{"question":"For the chosen adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can someone supply a matched-path ledger that reports not only bytes moved but also the three coefficients e_move, P_static, and Δt with their boundary and dwell-time assumptions?","unknowns":["Which memory boundary is the decision-relevant energy boundary and what is its e_move.","Whether boundary-resident occupancy adds a measurable P_static above the source/destination baseline.","The expected Δt window for the chosen adjacent operator pair.","Whether a matched-path ledger is feasible at the granularity required to separate M_saved and M_extra."],"proposed_test":"Extend the previously proposed byte-movement ledger with three registered coefficients: e_move in J/byte for the chosen boundary, additional P_static in W for keeping the activation boundary-resident, and Δt in s for the operator-dwell window. Then evaluate (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_static × Δt as an explicit pass/fail gate rather than a byte-traffic net.","failure_criterion":"The ledger again reports only bytes moved, or supplies e_move, P_static, or Δt as an unmeasured assumed value, or the computed break-even dwell time Δt* = (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move / P_static is outside the plausible operator dwell window and is not stated.","success_criterion":"The ledger reports e_move, P_static, and Δt such that the inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_static × Δt can be evaluated as true or false without missing dimensions, and the reported dwell window is bounded rather than open-ended."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality, but low confidence that the required module-level coefficients will be reported in the next ledger iteration.","change_reason":"The received proposal still uses byte movement as its primary success criterion and does not supply e_move, P_static, or Δt as checkable coefficients. No new measurement or canonical finding has changed the dimensional requirement.","current_position":"The boundary-resident handoff cannot be graded by byte traffic alone. The decision requires evaluating the energy inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move > P_static × Δt, with e_move in J/byte, P_static in W, and Δt in s, and the break-even dwell time Δt* = (M_saved − M_extra) × e_move / P_static must be stated against the expected dwell window.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-1F5BBA949659","estimated_cost_usd":0.00274137,"created_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:49.319Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-480862F861E7","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018909,"created_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T17:02:03.078Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-46C046CE9F3A","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.037826,"created_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T17:02:33.296Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","started_at":"2026-09-02T17:01:11.493Z","completed_at":"2026-09-02T17:02:33.902Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-A7460CF830CA","cycle_date":"2026-09-01","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-8B0F94524E42","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.07061386,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a result close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it exactly as stored; otherwise translating or moving it again erases the benefit.","strongest_warning":"The proposed energy math treats 'how long the result waits before use' as a fixed number you plug in, but that waiting time actually depends on how busy the chip is — and whoever picks that number can quietly steer the answer either way. The fix is to test two different busy-vs-idle scenarios and see if the conclusion survives both, not just report one convenient number.","equation_or_unit_check":"Moving less data only helps if the energy saved by skipping data movement exceeds the energy spent waiting for the result to be used; without numbers for both sides, we cannot tell whether the shortcut is worth it.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7D2D6B9B0422","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test conversion-free boundary-resident activation handoff before adding a new memory tier","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it exactly as stored; otherwise translating or moving it again erases the benefit.","handoff":{"question":"Can one producer–consumer activation boundary retain a single representation from production through consumption with lower complete-path memory traffic than ordinary materialization?","unknowns":["Which representative operator pair has compatible producer and consumer layouts.","Whether precision and ownership requirements can remain unchanged across the boundary.","Whether realistic capacity and scheduling preserve residency until consumption.","Whether any avoided intermediate traffic is offset by control or coherence traffic."],"proposed_test":"Create a matched traffic ledger for one two-operator boundary, comparing ordinary materialization with a boundary-resident direct handoff under the same tensor representation, capacity, and scheduling assumptions.","failure_criterion":"Any necessary conversion, synchronization, or capacity spill makes total traffic equal to or greater than the baseline materialization path.","success_criterion":"The direct handoff has lower complete-path traffic after producer writes, consumer reads, conversion, synchronization, and spill traffic are all included."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-2428534ECF43","estimated_cost_usd":0.014212,"created_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","completed_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:28.270Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-87E73C2765B6","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The direct handoff needs module-level coefficients and a machine-checkable energy-times-dwell threshold before it can be graded","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Moving less data only helps if the energy saved by skipping data movement exceeds the energy spent waiting for the result to be used; without numbers for both sides, we cannot tell whether the shortcut is worth it.","handoff":{"question":"What is the minimal module-level set of coefficients that lets a second team check the energy-times-dwell inequality for one producer-consumer boundary without access to the original design proposal?","unknowns":["Whether ε_move is constant across a boundary or depends on transfer size.","Whether P_static includes only the retained buffer or also the consumer stall.","Whether Δt is bounded by operator scheduling or by memory availability.","Whether byte counts in the ledger include coherence and synchronization traffic."],"proposed_test":"Publish a machine-readable parameter file with ε_move, P_static, and Δt upper/lower bounds, together with the baseline and direct byte counts for a single boundary, and ask a second team to compute the inequality from those numbers only.","failure_criterion":"No parameter file can be produced, or the parameters are inconsistent with any accepted hardware model, or the recovered decision depends on unstated rounding or assumptions.","success_criterion":"The second team can reproduce a yes/no decision for the boundary using only the parameter file and the inequality (M_baseline − M_direct) × ε_move > P_static × Δt without inspecting the original proposal."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality, but low confidence that the required module-level coefficients will be obtainable without a new experiment.","change_reason":"The received design proposal still uses byte traffic as its primary success criterion and does not supply ε_move, P_static, or Δt as checkable coefficients. No new measurement or canonical finding has changed the threshold.","current_position":"The boundary-resident handoff cannot be graded by byte traffic alone. The decision requires comparing movement-energy savings (M_saved − M_extra) × ε_move against residency cost P_static × Δt, with all quantities reported with compatible machine-readable bounds.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-7CFD92EDE3D4","estimated_cost_usd":0.00246036,"created_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","completed_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:44.196Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-92E1DF62F6F4","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0187695,"created_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","completed_at":"2026-09-01T17:02:02.015Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-68BECDE1590B","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Δt itself is not independent of the inequality it's supposed to gate: the proposed test can pass by construction, not by physics","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The proposed energy math treats 'how long the result waits before use' as a fixed number you plug in, but that waiting time actually depends on how busy the chip is — and whoever picks that number can quietly steer the answer either way. The fix is to test two different busy-vs-idle scenarios and see if the conclusion survives both, not just report one convenient number.","handoff":{"question":"Does the sign of DeepSeek's energy-times-dwell inequality for a single producer-consumer boundary remain stable when Δt is swept across an idle-scheduler regime versus a single-competing-consumer contention regime, holding ε_move, P_static, and byte counts fixed?","unknowns":["Whether a 'single competing consumer' regime is representative of realistic workloads or itself an arbitrary choice that needs its own justification.","Whether ε_move and P_static are truly independent of Δt or also shift under contention (e.g., static power changing with occupancy duration).","Whether the test_design phase's two prior failures were unrelated to this confound or were early symptoms of the same unspecified-regime problem."],"proposed_test":"Using DeepSeek's proposed parameter-file format, compute the inequality twice for the same boundary and same ε_move/P_static/byte-count values: once with Δt measured (or credibly bounded) under near-idle scheduling, and once with Δt measured under one realistic competing consumer sharing the same on-chip memory bank. Compare the two yes/no verdicts.","failure_criterion":"The verdict flips between the idle and contended Δt regimes, which means any single-point Δt report in the parameter file can be cherry-picked to produce either conclusion and the claim must be restated as regime-conditional, not general.","success_criterion":"The inequality's verdict (direct handoff wins vs. baseline wins) is identical across both Δt regimes, showing the conclusion is not an artifact of which scheduling snapshot was chosen."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I don't know whether contention-regime sensitivity for Δt is large enough in practice to actually flip the inequality's sign for realistic CrystalRAM boundaries — that is an empirical question the sweep test would answer, not something I can resolve by inspection alone.","change_reason":"The evidence handed to me this cycle (DeepSeek's inequality and parameter-file proposal) is a refinement of, not a departure from, the pattern I identified on 2026-08-25/26/29/30. No new information has appeared that resolves the confound, so my position stays the same; only the specific manifestation (Δt instead of occupancy or layout) has changed.","current_position":"Unchanged across three review cycles: the recurring defect is treating a contention-dependent quantity — first SRAM occupancy, then layout compatibility, now dwell time Δt inside the energy inequality — as a single fixed input rather than a swept variable. DeepSeek's parameter-file proposal is a genuine improvement in machine-checkability but does not close this gap; it just moves the same hidden lever into a new variable name.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-E3141A19F191","estimated_cost_usd":0.035172,"created_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","completed_at":"2026-09-01T17:02:30.974Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","started_at":"2026-09-01T17:01:11.153Z","completed_at":"2026-09-01T17:02:31.689Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-4AC01791EA05","cycle_date":"2026-08-31","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-BEEEDC31DA90","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":4,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06902473,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 1 published a contribution and 4 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data close helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be repacked or moved into a different shape first, the supposed shortcut may save nothing.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-03374E9653B6","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test conversion-free boundary-resident activation handoff before adding a new memory tier","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data close helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be repacked or moved into a different shape first, the supposed shortcut may save nothing.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can a boundary-resident activation be consumed in its producer representation without conversion or capacity-driven spill, while reducing complete-path memory traffic versus the shared-memory baseline?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor representation are representative.","Whether the consumer contract permits direct use of the producer layout and precision.","Scratch capacity, lifetime overlap, and scheduling constraints.","Whether correctness requirements force materialization or conversion."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched per-inference traffic ledger for one explicitly specified adjacent-operator pair under a shared-memory baseline and a boundary-resident handoff. Count payload reads and writes, format-conversion and staging traffic, metadata, synchronization-induced materialization, and spills; require identical numerical and scheduling assumptions across both cases.","failure_criterion":"Conversion, staging, synchronization-induced materialization, or spill traffic erases the avoided shared-memory round trip, or the consumer cannot directly accept the producer representation.","success_criterion":"The handoff case has lower complete-path traffic than the baseline with no uncounted conversion or spill path, and the producer representation is directly accepted by the consumer contract."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would alter the prior proposal.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-B45E8D3D1B59","estimated_cost_usd":0.013888,"created_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","completed_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:36.081Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-429077A93B77","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00298323,"created_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","completed_at":"2026-08-31T17:01:03.017Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-A67638F0EA18","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0180255,"created_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","completed_at":"2026-08-31T17:01:18.155Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-5C7F4A7F8280","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.034128,"created_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","completed_at":"2026-08-31T17:01:45.418Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","started_at":"2026-08-31T17:00:21.145Z","completed_at":"2026-08-31T17:01:45.988Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-464E33A886BF","cycle_date":"2026-08-30","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-AF4012076F6C","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06925698,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a result close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or copied first, the apparent saving can disappear.","strongest_warning":"A formula saying 'park data here only if it saves more energy than it wastes' is only trustworthy if you test it under realistic traffic conditions, not just one quiet moment. Two design attempts have failed before anyone even ran that test — and the formula itself still doesn't say how busy the shelf needs to be when you check it.","equation_or_unit_check":"Keeping a result parked near the next step is not free just because it avoids moving data. The parked copy leaks power the whole time it sits there, while moving data costs energy only once per move. The real question is whether the energy saved by not moving is bigger than the energy burned by parking for the whole wait. We still need the actual power and movement-energy numbers before anyone can say whether the shortcut wins.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-414055462E69","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Bound the boundary-resident activation handoff by conversion cost","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or copied first, the apparent saving can disappear.","handoff":{"question":"Can a Crystal Vault/Prism Scratch boundary-resident activation handoff reduce complete-path memory movement for one matched adjacent producer–consumer pair without format conversion or capacity-driven spill?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer operator pair is representative.","Whether their required layouts, quantization, and ownership rules are compatible.","Prism Scratch capacity and eviction behavior under the matched schedule.","Whether synchronization requirements force materialization or spill."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched traffic ledger for one adjacent operator pair under baseline materialization and boundary-resident handoff, including tensor reads and writes, format conversion, metadata movement, synchronization effects, and spill/reload traffic.","failure_criterion":"The ledger shows conversion, metadata, synchronization, or spill/reload traffic eliminates the apparent traffic reduction, or the consumer cannot directly consume the retained representation.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident path has lower complete-path memory traffic than baseline, with no compensating conversion or spill traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context contains no new trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence; the prior bounded proposal remains the clearest discriminating systems question.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-A2D09688B2F8","estimated_cost_usd":0.013556,"created_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:33.398Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E27F759E8971","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The boundary-resident handoff threshold needs an energy-times-dwell inequality, not a byte-traffic net","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result parked near the next step is not free just because it avoids moving data. The parked copy leaks power the whole time it sits there, while moving data costs energy only once per move. The real question is whether the energy saved by not moving is bigger than the energy burned by parking for the whole wait. We still need the actual power and movement-energy numbers before anyone can say whether the shortcut wins.","handoff":{"question":"For one matched adjacent producer–consumer pair, can the boundary-resident handoff be shown to satisfy (M_saved − M_extra) × ε_move > P_static × Δt, with all terms reported in joules and seconds rather than byte counts alone?","unknowns":["ε_move values for Vault-to-Scratch and Scratch-to-consumer paths in J/byte, including any format-conversion read/write penalty","P_static for the boundary-resident Scratch tier in W","Δt for the resident handoff interval in seconds, including schedule-stretch effects","Whether spill, synchronization, or metadata traffic converts saved bytes into M_extra that cancels M_saved","The specific matched producer–consumer pair, because its layout compatibility determines M_saved and M_extra"],"proposed_test":"Construct the matched traffic ledger, additionally recording M_saved and M_extra in bytes, T_dwell in seconds, and instrumented or device-documented values for ε_move in joules per byte and P_static in watts. Then evaluate the inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × ε_move − P_static × Δt and report its sign and magnitude, including unit derivations for every term.","failure_criterion":"Any term remains unknown, byte counts are substituted for joules, units do not cancel to the stated inequality, or the computed value is less than or equal to zero.","success_criterion":"Every term in the inequality is measured or explicitly documented, units reduce to joules and seconds without dimension mismatch, and the computed value is strictly greater than zero for the specified producer–consumer pair."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence in the dimensional correctness of the inequality, but low confidence that the required device values will be obtainable without additional instrumentation beyond the proposed ledger.","change_reason":"The received design proposal still uses byte traffic as its primary success criterion and does not supply ε_move, P_static, or Δt. No new measurement or canonical finding has changed the underlying inequality; the refinement from generic byte savings to an explicit M_saved and M_extra ledger is a clarification, not a reversal.","current_position":"The boundary-resident handoff cannot be graded by byte-traffic reduction alone. The decision requires the energy inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × ε_move > P_static × Δt, with ε_move in J/byte, P_static in W, and Δt in s. A byte-ledger result that omits power or dwell time is dimensionally incomplete and cannot pass or fail the architectural claim.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-0E2D00CD8FAF","estimated_cost_usd":0.00284098,"created_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-30T17:02:01.161Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-1E4C77AA1BE6","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018798,"created_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-30T17:02:14.459Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-BBC991142D1B","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Phase 3 failed twice; the inequality itself hides an unstated independence assumption that must be tested before any suite exists","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"A formula saying 'park data here only if it saves more energy than it wastes' is only trustworthy if you test it under realistic traffic conditions, not just one quiet moment. Two design attempts have failed before anyone even ran that test — and the formula itself still doesn't say how busy the shelf needs to be when you check it.","handoff":{"question":"Does the boundary-resident handoff inequality (M_saved − M_extra) × ε_move > P_static × Δt hold across a swept range of Prism Scratch occupancy levels, or only at the single occupancy level a naive test would default to measuring?","unknowns":["Why the test_design phase failed twice (invalid_model_output) — whether the failure is unrelated to this confound or itself a symptom of underspecified control variables.","Whether Δt is dominated by compute schedule or by Scratch eviction policy under contention.","Whether ε_move is itself occupancy-dependent (e.g., due to bus contention) or a fixed device constant."],"proposed_test":"Regenerate the test_design phase to require measuring all five inequality terms at three or more distinct Scratch occupancy levels (e.g., low, medium, near-capacity) for the same matched producer-consumer pair, reporting the inequality's truth value at each level rather than a single aggregate pass/fail.","failure_criterion":"The inequality's sign flips between occupancy levels, or the regenerated test_design artifact again omits an occupancy sweep and reports only a single-condition measurement.","success_criterion":"The inequality holds (strictly greater than zero) across all tested occupancy levels with consistent measurement methodology, or the occupancy dependence is characterized well enough to state the operating range where it holds."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I don't know why test_design failed twice (invalid_model_output gives no diagnostic detail), so I can't rule out that the failures are due to an unrelated formatting or validation issue rather than this substantive confound.","change_reason":"The underlying pattern is the same confound I raised on 2026-08-25 and 2026-08-29, now manifesting inside DeepSeek's energy inequality rather than the earlier traffic ledger; no new evidence has resolved it, and two consecutive test_design failures mean it still has not been addressed in a published protocol.","current_position":"Unchanged: the recurring defect across three cycles is treating a contention-dependent quantity (Scratch/SRAM occupancy, now expressed via dwell time Δt in the energy inequality) as a fixed constant rather than a swept variable, which lets a single favorable measurement stand in for a claim about general workload behavior.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-CD977BA37748","estimated_cost_usd":0.034062,"created_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-30T17:02:42.493Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","started_at":"2026-08-30T17:01:16.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-30T17:02:43.229Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-CA7964CE9102","cycle_date":"2026-08-29","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-85AFD3083F15","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06936813,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data where it was produced helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or pushed out to make room, the supposed shortcut may move just as much data.","strongest_warning":"Two steps in this multi-step review process errored out and produced nothing usable, so there's no finished test plan to critique yet — only the original idea from step one. Separately, that original idea's pass/fail rule could be satisfied by definition if the comparison isn't set up carefully, which is a fixable design flaw, not a fatal one.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-C7FD6C1C6F0C","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Bound the boundary-resident activation handoff by conversion cost","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data where it was produced helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or pushed out to make room, the supposed shortcut may move just as much data.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can a shared resident activation representation reduce complete-path memory movement versus materialize-and-reload without introducing conversion or spill traffic that erases the saving?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer pair is representative enough to test first.","Whether the consumer can accept the producer layout without repacking.","Resident capacity and allocation lifetime needed to prevent eviction.","How synchronization and scheduling constraints contribute to staging or spill traffic."],"proposed_test":"Define one matched adjacent-operator pair and compare a baseline materialize-and-reload path with a direct-resident handoff using the same output, layout requirements, capacity assumptions, and scheduling boundary. Produce a traffic ledger that separately records reads, writes, layout conversions, staging copies, and spill/eviction traffic.","failure_criterion":"The direct-resident path has equal or greater total ledgered movement, or its apparent savings depend on an unspecified layout conversion, capacity exemption, or spill/eviction assumption.","success_criterion":"The direct-resident path has lower total ledgered memory movement than the baseline, while preserving the specified output and requiring no uncounted conversion or spill path."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context contains no new trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence; the prior bounded proposal remains the clearest discriminating systems question.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-327286B27324","estimated_cost_usd":0.014218,"created_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","completed_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:35.539Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7E852A2A0D22","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00300063,"created_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","completed_at":"2026-08-29T17:01:02.296Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D818DA8EB875","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0180015,"created_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","completed_at":"2026-08-29T17:01:18.085Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-A66D059C2DC1","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Two consecutive phase failures leave nothing to adversarially review — the pipeline itself is the defect","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Two steps in this multi-step review process errored out and produced nothing usable, so there's no finished test plan to critique yet — only the original idea from step one. Separately, that original idea's pass/fail rule could be satisfied by definition if the comparison isn't set up carefully, which is a fixable design flaw, not a fatal one.","handoff":{"question":"Can the coordinator regenerate valid first_principles and test_design outputs for the boundary-resident activation handoff proposal, and if so, does the resulting test design specify producer/consumer layouts independently of the resident representation being tested?","unknowns":["Why both intervening phases failed with invalid_model_output — is this a schema issue, a context-length issue, or a genuine inability to produce a derivation for this proposal.","Whether the original proposal author intended layout compatibility to be a free variable or a controlled one.","What 'ledgered movement' counts as a unit — bytes, transactions, or energy — since the unit choice interacts with whether conversion cost is comparably measured."],"proposed_test":"Re-run sequence 2 (first_principles) and sequence 3 (test_design) for task CR-WQ-E4E667E16C17's parent proposal until both produce valid non-empty output; then check whether the chosen operator pair's producer and consumer layouts are fixed by the underlying model architecture rather than selected to guarantee compatibility with the proposed resident representation.","failure_criterion":"The regenerated test design still permits the operator pair or the resident representation to be chosen after the fact so that conversion cost is zero by construction, which would make the success criterion pass regardless of any real architectural advantage.","success_criterion":"A regenerated test design exists where layout compatibility between producer and consumer is either already forced by the architecture (no researcher discretion) or is itself swept as an independent variable alongside occupancy/dwell time."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I cannot see why the first_principles and test_design phases failed, so I don't know whether the eventual regenerated artifacts will already address the layout-compatibility concern I'm raising preemptively.","change_reason":"The underlying pattern — a plausible-sounding success criterion that a lax test design could satisfy without controlling the real confound — recurs across different candidates (occupancy before, layout compatibility now), so my position on needing explicit control-variable sweeps is consistent, not revised.","current_position":"Unchanged from my prior two reviews: candidates in this project repeatedly under-specify a control variable (previously SRAM occupancy level, now layout-compatibility between producer and consumer) that can make a headline success criterion pass by construction rather than by genuine architectural advantage. This cycle adds a distinct, more basic problem: two pipeline phases failed outright, so there is no test design to review at all.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-FEC35840FDA0","estimated_cost_usd":0.034148,"created_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","completed_at":"2026-08-29T17:01:45.867Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T17:00:21.356Z","completed_at":"2026-08-29T17:01:46.530Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-A84911832317","cycle_date":"2026-08-28","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-CC2E7BE1E642","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.03585002,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it as-is; if it must be rearranged first, the apparent saving can disappear.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Moving data costs energy once, like paying a bus fare. Keeping data near where it will be used also costs energy the whole time it waits, like a meter running while a package sits in a hold. Comparing only the fares hides the meter reading. We need to know how long the data waits and how fast that holding meter runs before we can say which option truly costs less.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-F036ABBBC8F8","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Bound the boundary-resident activation handoff by conversion cost","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data close to the next computation helps only if the next computation can use it as-is; if it must be rearranged first, the apparent saving can disappear.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, can a shared resident activation layout lower complete-path memory movement relative to ordinary materialization without introducing conversion or capacity-induced spill traffic?","unknowns":["Which adjacent operator pair has a genuinely compatible layout contract.","How scratch capacity and scheduling affect spill and refill behavior.","Whether metadata and synchronization traffic are material at the chosen boundary.","Whether the required layout remains valid across the producer–consumer interface."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched byte-traffic ledger for a baseline materialize-and-reload path and a boundary-resident shared-layout path, explicitly recording producer writes, consumer reads, layout conversion, metadata, spills, and refills.","failure_criterion":"The shared-layout path has equal or greater complete-path traffic, or its apparent reduction depends on omitted conversion, spill, refill, metadata, or semantic differences.","success_criterion":"The shared-layout path has lower complete-path traffic than baseline while preserving identical operator-output semantics and requiring no uncounted conversion or spill."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context contains no new trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence; the prior bounded proposal remains the clearest discriminating systems question.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-939F83BC1640","estimated_cost_usd":0.014256,"created_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","completed_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:36.506Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-06A6F2F3D62A","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The byte ledger hides a time dimension: the threshold is zero net movement-energy saving over the dwell interval","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Moving data costs energy once, like paying a bus fare. Keeping data near where it will be used also costs energy the whole time it waits, like a meter running while a package sits in a hold. Comparing only the fares hides the meter reading. We need to know how long the data waits and how fast that holding meter runs before we can say which option truly costs less.","handoff":{"question":"For a chosen producer-consumer pair, what are the measured values of the movement-energy coefficient ε_move (J/byte), the residency static power P_static (W), and the typical dwell interval Δt (s), and does P_static × Δt fall below B_total × ε_move?","unknowns":["The dimensionless ratio ε_move / P_static, with units of seconds per byte, for any physical boundary.","Whether Δt for the chosen operator pair is tightly bounded or workload-dependent.","Whether B_total can be measured without assuming perfect cache behavior.","Whether static power varies with data placement density or temperature."],"proposed_test":"Instrument one adjacent producer-consumer operator pair and report three scalar values: B_total (eliminated round-trip bytes), ε_move (J/byte), and P_static (W), each with an uncertainty interval. Then measure or define the operating dwell Δt in seconds. Compute Δt* = (B_total × ε_move) / P_static and report whether Δt < Δt* with stated confidence.","failure_criterion":"The source data is missing, or the resulting estimate has uncertainty intervals wide enough to straddle the threshold, in which case neither path can be ranked as energy-dominant for the chosen pair.","success_criterion":"A numeric statement of the form Δt < Δt* at a stated confidence level, derived from independently measured ε_move, P_static, and Δt with documented uncertainty intervals and matching boundary conditions."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the threshold derivation is dimensionally exact under the stated cost model, but low confidence that the required three quantities can be cleanly separated in a practical instrumented test.","change_reason":"The received proposal still uses byte traffic as its primary success criterion and does not report ε_move, P_static, or Δt. No new measurement or canonical finding has changed the underlying position.","current_position":"The resident-handoff decision requires comparing P_static × Δt against B_total × ε_move. A byte-traffic ledger is insufficient because residency costs scale with dwell time while movement costs do not.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-D975C67D7E04","estimated_cost_usd":0.00272702,"created_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","completed_at":"2026-08-28T17:01:00.959Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-39BE5EB4BE7C","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.018867,"created_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","completed_at":"2026-08-28T17:01:15.917Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7FEA9BBECFAA","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":null,"title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"timeout","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":null,"created_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","completed_at":"2026-08-28T17:01:56.904Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","started_at":"2026-08-28T17:00:21.146Z","completed_at":"2026-08-28T17:01:57.585Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-DCDA2C60C78E","cycle_date":"2026-08-27","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-A8462FEB0780","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06681413,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"No preregisterable test plan was successfully recorded.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Keeping data nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or copied anyway, the saved trip was not a real saving.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Keeping data nearby can save a trip, but holding it there uses power for as long as it waits. The real question is whether the energy saved by avoiding the trip outweighs the energy spent keeping the data waiting. That balance depends on three specific numbers, none of which the current test provides.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-04B27F52A6BD","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test a layout-stable boundary handoff before replacing the Vault + Prism abstraction","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. If it must be rearranged or copied anyway, the saved trip was not a real saving.","handoff":{"question":"Can a layout-stable, boundary-resident activation handoff reduce complete-path memory traffic for one matched producer–consumer boundary without shifting the same traffic into conversion, spills, or scheduling stalls?","unknowns":["Which producer–consumer boundary and tensor layout are representative.","Whether the consumer can directly accept the producer's emitted tile and precision.","Available resident capacity and eviction policy.","Whether synchronization or ownership transfer adds uncounted traffic or stalls."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched per-boundary traffic ledger for one representative producer–consumer pair under identical tensor shape, layout, precision, capacity assumptions, and schedule; compare conventional materialization against the boundary-resident handoff and count reads, writes, repacks, metadata/control movement, spills, reloads, and evictions.","failure_criterion":"Total complete-path traffic is unchanged or higher, or satisfying the consumer contract requires repacking, precision conversion, spill/reload, or serialization sufficient to negate the avoided materialization.","success_criterion":"The resident-handoff case preserves the consumer input contract and has lower total complete-path bytes moved than conventional materialization, with no added conversion or capacity-driven spill/reload path that offsets the reduction."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context contains no new trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence; this proposal retains the prior bounded criterion.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-041B7255ABAB","estimated_cost_usd":0.01521,"created_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","completed_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:34.491Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-ABEEDA304106","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"The handoff ledger needs an energy-times-dwell threshold, not a byte-count threshold","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data nearby can save a trip, but holding it there uses power for as long as it waits. The real question is whether the energy saved by avoiding the trip outweighs the energy spent keeping the data waiting. That balance depends on three specific numbers, none of which the current test provides.","handoff":{"question":"For one named producer–consumer boundary, what measured or specification-derived values of movement-energy coefficient c_move (J/byte), incremental retention power P (W per byte), and dwell-time difference Δt (s) determine whether the resident handoff wins?","unknowns":["c_move in J/byte for the exact producer–consumer path, including all intermediate crossings","incremental per-byte static or refresh power P at the target tier and occupancy","actual dwell-time difference Δt between resident retention and reload timing","whether refresh energy scales linearly with retained bytes or includes fixed per-tier overhead"],"proposed_test":"Build the matched per-boundary ledger exactly as proposed, but alongside the byte counts record c_move, P, and Δt. Evaluate the handoff against E_saved = c_move · ΔB and E_added = P · Δt, then compare the operating point with the derived threshold Δt* = (c_move · ΔB) / P.","failure_criterion":"Any of c_move, P, or Δt remains as an assumed or guessed constant, or the tested dwell time sits within uncertainty bands of Δt* so that the inequality cannot be decided without guessing.","success_criterion":"The next scientist obtains c_move, P, and Δt by measurement or publicly documented specification, and the derived threshold Δt* is finite, positive, and machine-checkable in seconds."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the named unknowns block any numeric hardware verdict; low confidence that a byte-ledger result alone can pass or fail the idea.","change_reason":"No new measurements or canonical findings changed the underlying position. The received design proposal still uses byte counts as its central success criterion and does not supply per-boundary energy coefficients, static powers, or dwell times.","current_position":"The resident-handoff decision requires per-boundary movement-energy coefficients in J/byte, per-tier static powers in W, and dwell-time differences in seconds. It cannot be graded by byte counts or peak live state alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-78D4C3A53E12","estimated_cost_usd":0.00265263,"created_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","completed_at":"2026-08-27T17:02:01.204Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-EBBD111500EE","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"failed","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0187995,"created_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","completed_at":"2026-08-27T17:02:15.050Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-5E8D3FF93ADB","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.030152,"created_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","completed_at":"2026-08-27T17:02:41.905Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","started_at":"2026-08-27T17:01:09.613Z","completed_at":"2026-08-27T17:02:42.462Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-A7617A6539ED","cycle_date":"2026-08-26","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-5DE7B5B4D0D2","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06542665,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Run a deterministic memory trace evaluation comparing HBM materialization vs scratch-resident handoff for an RMSNorm -> QKV projection block (sequence length 8192, batch size 1, 256 KiB scratch limit). Measure complete-path byte traffic including primary reads/writes, translation staging copies, and capacity spills.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Keep a result next to the unit that will use it only when it can use the result as-is. If it must be reformatted or moved elsewhere first, the shortcut has not saved the trip.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-276C34DBE1A4","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test a layout-stable boundary handoff before replacing the Vault + Prism abstraction","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keep a result next to the unit that will use it only when it can use the result as-is. If it must be reformatted or moved elsewhere first, the shortcut has not saved the trip.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer–consumer operator pair, does a consumer-compatible, scratch-resident handoff reduce complete-path memory traffic versus materializing the intermediate through the ordinary backing path?","unknowns":["Which operator pair and tensor layouts are representative.","Whether local scratch capacity can retain the intermediate through consumer dispatch.","Whether the execution schedule can guarantee adjacency without reducing useful parallelism.","What synchronization and layout-conversion costs the target system imposes."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched symbolic traffic ledger for the baseline materialized path and the boundary-resident path, including all writes, reads, layout conversions, staging/synchronization copies, and spill/reload events required by each path.","failure_criterion":"The matched ledger shows equal or greater total movement for the boundary-resident path, or identifies a required conversion, capacity spill, or scheduling delay that invalidates direct consumption.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident path has lower total counted movement while preserving the required consumer input and final output layouts without an uncounted conversion or forced spill."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or scheduling evidence has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context contains no new trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence; this proposal retains the prior bounded criterion while framing it as an alternative to universal Vault-plus-scratch placement.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer–consumer contract, evaluated by complete-path traffic rather than avoided writes alone.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-1043769C1F9E","estimated_cost_usd":0.015102,"created_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","completed_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:39.172Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-356997FEB535","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00311765,"created_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","completed_at":"2026-08-26T17:01:11.393Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-8E4737AB3032","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered execution trace protocol for consumer-compatible scratch pad handoffs","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"We are testing whether keeping temporary calculation results in ultra-fast local scratch memory actually saves energy and time when the next calculation step requires re-sorting the data layout. If re-sorting takes as much energy as saving to main memory, the optimization fails.","handoff":{"question":"Does keeping activation tensors in local scratch memory reduce total data movement when accounting for layout transposition and scratch tile spills during RMSNorm-to-QKV execution?","unknowns":["Whether local layout translation engines consume static energy that outweighs dynamic DRAM transfer savings.","Whether scratch capacity limits force partial HBM spills during peak activation sequence length."],"proposed_test":"Run a deterministic memory trace evaluation comparing HBM materialization vs scratch-resident handoff for an RMSNorm -> QKV projection block (sequence length 8192, batch size 1, 256 KiB scratch limit). Measure complete-path byte traffic including primary reads/writes, translation staging copies, and capacity spills.","failure_criterion":"Scratch-resident path results in $\\ge 1.00\\times$ total memory traffic relative to HBM materialization baseline, or requires layout translation staging copies that equal or exceed the avoided HBM write volume.","success_criterion":"Scratch-resident path demonstrates $\\ge 20\\%$ reduction in total path byte movement compared to the HBM materialization baseline without triggering HBM capacity spill."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy penalty of layout translation engines versus DRAM access cycles.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while establishing explicit trace reproduction protocol and failure criteria for multi-tier energy accounting.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, layout conversion, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-298C0DAED492","estimated_cost_usd":0.011235,"created_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","completed_at":"2026-08-26T17:01:26.381Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-AEA62533B4C2","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035972,"created_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","completed_at":"2026-08-26T17:01:53.235Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T17:00:21.520Z","completed_at":"2026-08-26T17:01:53.885Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-6A52CA0C55C9","cycle_date":"2026-08-25","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-9A023220C343","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06573191,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Execute a synthetic trace suite of 50 multi-head attention and MLP operator pairs with varied dwell times (1µs to 100µs) and tensor shapes. Measure total energy consumption for both the resident handoff and HBM materialization paths.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a result nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. Count every detour needed to make it usable; if those detours erase the saved trip to main memory, the idea fails.","strongest_warning":"A test that tries 50 different data shapes still won't tell you the real reason resident memory wins or loses unless it also checks whether the fast scratchpad was crowded or empty at the time — because crowding, not just timing, may be the actual deciding factor.","equation_or_unit_check":"Saying one path is cheaper because it moves less data is like saying a trip is cheaper because it covers fewer miles, while ignoring the tolls per road and the cost of waiting at each stop. The handoff idea needs toll prices and wait costs before we can score it. Until those are measured, the only honest result is a list of the unknown prices.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-8C1677CC2ED1","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Gate boundary-resident activation handoff on whole-path traffic, not avoided writes","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a result nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is. Count every detour needed to make it usable; if those detours erase the saved trip to main memory, the idea fails.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer-consumer operator pair, does a shared Prism Scratch layout and schedule reduce complete-path memory traffic versus materializing and reloading the activation?","unknowns":["Which operator pairs and shapes have layout-compatible producer and consumer requirements.","Prism Scratch capacity and scheduling constraints for retaining the activation.","Whether synchronization or contention forces spills or HBM fallback.","Whether a byte reduction remains meaningful once latency and compute scheduling are considered."],"proposed_test":"Construct a matched byte-traffic ledger for one representative operator pair and shape under materialized and resident handoff paths, explicitly accounting for reads, writes, layout conversion, padding, synchronization spills, and HBM fallback.","failure_criterion":"Total bytes moved are equal to or greater than the materialized path after complete accounting, or the pair cannot sustain a shared layout and schedule.","success_criterion":"The resident path has lower total bytes moved than the materialized path without requiring an unaccounted conversion, spill, or fallback."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no matched traffic ledger, operator-layout specification, capacity model, or schedule has been supplied.","change_reason":"The supplied context adds no trace, layout, capacity, or scheduling evidence that would justify changing the prior position.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer-consumer contract, with complete-path traffic—not avoided writes alone—as the admission metric.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-76D41B3D60B8","estimated_cost_usd":0.014058,"created_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","completed_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:26.919Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-FA8125069BCA","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Byte counts cannot settle the handoff; the binding unknown is the ratio of refresh energy to saved movement energy per bit","evidence_label":"open_question","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Saying one path is cheaper because it moves less data is like saying a trip is cheaper because it covers fewer miles, while ignoring the tolls per road and the cost of waiting at each stop. The handoff idea needs toll prices and wait costs before we can score it. Until those are measured, the only honest result is a list of the unknown prices.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent producer-consumer operator pair, is the energy saved by moving fewer bytes across a boundary larger than the additional time-weighted static energy of retaining the activation in the nearer tier?","unknowns":["Per-boundary energy coefficient e_b for every boundary the two paths actually cross","Per-tier static power P_static,tier for each tier a retained activation dwells in","Dwell-time difference between resident and materialized schedules for the representative pair","Which operator pairs have layout-compatible producer-consumer requirements without forcing a conversion boundary"],"proposed_test":"Measure or bound, for the chosen pair, the per-boundary movement-energy coefficients e_b in J/byte, the per-tier static powers P_static,tier in W, and the dwell-time differences Δt_tier in seconds. Compute the dimensionless margin ratio M = (E_materialized - E_resident) / max(E_materialized, E_resident), with E = Σ_b Bytes_b · e_b + Σ_t P_static,tier · Δt_tier. Compare M against a declared measurement tolerance plus estimated uncertainty.","failure_criterion":"The margin ratio M is negative, or any required e_b, P_static,tier, or Δt_tier remains unmeasured so that M cannot be computed, or a positive M depends only on assumed values that are not supported by CR-F-0005 or CR-E-0006.","success_criterion":"The margin ratio M is positive and exceeds the declared tolerance plus uncertainty, computed from measured, not assumed, per-boundary energy coefficients and per-tier static powers, with dwell times drawn from the actual schedule for the pair."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Medium confidence that the named unknowns block a numeric verdict, because the derivation is exact under the stated cost model; low confidence on any actual energy advantage until the coefficients and dwell times are measured.","change_reason":"No new measurements or canonical findings changed the underlying position. The received handoff still uses byte counts as its success criterion and supplies no per-boundary energy coefficients, no per-tier static powers, and no dwell times, so it remains dimensionally incomplete.","current_position":"The resident-handoff decision cannot be graded by byte counts or peak live state alone. It requires per-boundary movement-energy coefficients in J/byte, per-tier static powers in W, and dwell-time differences in seconds, combined into a dimensionally consistent energy comparison with a declared margin ratio and tolerance.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-75A140CFCF89","estimated_cost_usd":0.00286491,"created_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","completed_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:51.776Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-48862C845751","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace protocol to test resident activation handoffs against dynamic leakage and conversion overheads","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Keeping data in fast scratchpad memory only saves power if the data is used quickly. If the data sits waiting while other tasks run, the energy lost to keeping the scratchpad powered up will be higher than the energy saved by avoiding a trip to main memory.","handoff":{"question":"Does retaining intermediate activations in Prism Scratch yield net energy savings when accounting for dynamic static leakage and layout conversion overheads across standard transformer blocks?","unknowns":["Exact static leakage power coefficient of Prism Scratch under active execution workloads.","Hardware conversion energy cost per byte when switching tensor layouts between activation producers and consumers."],"proposed_test":"Execute a synthetic trace suite of 50 multi-head attention and MLP operator pairs with varied dwell times (1µs to 100µs) and tensor shapes. Measure total energy consumption for both the resident handoff and HBM materialization paths.","failure_criterion":"The resident handoff path consumes equal or higher total energy compared to HBM materialization in >20% of test cases, or static leakage consumes >50% of the calculated dynamic energy savings during compute stalls.","success_criterion":"The resident handoff path achieves >15% lower total energy consumption than the HBM materialization path across at least 80% of test cases without incurring layout conversion spills."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy penalty of layout translation engines versus DRAM access cycles.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while establishing explicit trace reproduction protocol and failure criteria for multi-tier energy accounting.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, layout conversion, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reloads.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-426920FE2EF1","estimated_cost_usd":0.014115,"created_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","completed_at":"2026-08-25T17:02:07.580Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-88598C6E1502","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"The 50-pair trace suite still confounds occupancy level with pair identity; success criterion cannot isolate the mechanism it claims to test","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"A test that tries 50 different data shapes still won't tell you the real reason resident memory wins or loses unless it also checks whether the fast scratchpad was crowded or empty at the time — because crowding, not just timing, may be the actual deciding factor.","handoff":{"question":"Does the resident-vs-materialized energy margin for a given operator pair change sign or magnitude when Prism Scratch occupancy from co-resident tiles is varied independently of that pair's own dwell time and shape?","unknowns":["Realistic distribution of concurrent tile occupancy in actual workloads, versus the synthetic near-empty/near-full extremes proposed here","Whether eviction policy under high occupancy introduces its own energy cost not captured by a simple occupancy-level toggle","Whether the 50-pair suite's shape distribution already confounds with occupancy in a way that biases the aggregate pass rate even before this repair is applied"],"proposed_test":"For a representative subset (e.g., 10 of the 50) of the preregistered operator pairs, rerun the trace under two synthetic co-occupancy conditions: Scratch near-empty (only the pair's own tile resident) and Scratch near-full (filler tiles occupying most remaining capacity, forcing realistic contention/eviction pressure). Hold dwell time and shape fixed per pair across the two occupancy conditions and report the energy margin separately for each.","failure_criterion":"The margin sign flips or magnitude changes by more than the declared tolerance between occupancy conditions for a substantial fraction of sampled pairs, showing the original 50-pair aggregate pass rate conflates occupancy contention with the dwell-time mechanism it claims to isolate.","success_criterion":"The energy margin's sign and approximate magnitude (within stated tolerance) are stable across low- and high-occupancy conditions for the sampled pairs, supporting a occupancy-independent mechanism claim."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I only have the compressed handoff for CR-D-426920FE2EF1, not the full protocol, so I cannot confirm whether occupancy sweeps were already implicitly included and simply not mentioned in the summary.","change_reason":"This is the same occupancy-confound concern I raised for the prior single-pair design; the multi-pair suite reduces but does not eliminate it, since occupancy level still isn't swept independently of pair identity, so my position is unchanged in substance though now applied to the revised design.","current_position":"The 50-pair trace suite is a genuine improvement over the earlier single-pair microbenchmark, but it still lacks an explicit occupancy-contention control: pair identity confounds dwell time/shape with how full Prism Scratch is, so the aggregate >15% pass-rate criterion cannot distinguish a genuine dwell-time mechanism from an artifact of which shapes happen to fit Scratch cleanly under low contention.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-A6271EF4BD7E","estimated_cost_usd":0.034694,"created_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","completed_at":"2026-08-25T17:02:36.116Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","started_at":"2026-08-25T17:01:10.142Z","completed_at":"2026-08-25T17:02:36.893Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-CBD666D19A1A","cycle_date":"2026-08-24","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-F2BAF16E1832","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06439124,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Execute a 128-trace synthetic operator suite simulating local scratchpad staging versus DRAM reload baselines across varying dwell times (10ns to 1ms) and conversion penalties (0 to 0.5 pJ/bit). Measure net Joules consumed per boundary.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is before it must be moved away. If it needs reshaping, waiting, or spilling, the apparent saving can disappear.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting how many bytes move is like comparing two delivery routes by counting boxes while ignoring how far each box travels and how long each sits in a warehouse with the lights on. A handoff can move fewer boxes but still cost more if the saved box ends up parked in an expensive location.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-25D9A1D68628","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test whether layout-compatible activation handoff survives complete traffic accounting","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next computation can use it as-is before it must be moved away. If it needs reshaping, waiting, or spilling, the apparent saving can disappear.","handoff":{"question":"For layout-compatible producer-consumer boundaries, does a resident handoff reduce total memory traffic after accounting for conversion, live-range pressure, spills, and synchronization?","unknowns":["Which operator pairs preserve a directly consumable tile layout.","How much resident-buffer capacity and live-range overlap the schedule permits.","Whether synchronization constraints force reloads despite layout compatibility.","What baseline schedule and boundary set should be considered representative."],"proposed_test":"Construct a boundary-level traffic ledger comparing a baseline materialize-and-reload schedule with a resident-handoff schedule, recording all activation reads, writes, conversions, spills, and reloads under the same operator sequence.","failure_criterion":"No examined eligible boundary class shows net traffic reduction after the ledger includes all conversion, spill, reload, and synchronization costs.","success_criterion":"At least one clearly defined boundary class has lower total accounted memory movement in the resident-handoff schedule without requiring an added conversion or spill that erases the avoided materialization."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: the supplied context contains no operator traces, layouts, scheduling constraints, capacity model, or measured traffic accounting.","change_reason":"This retains the prior position and sharpens its bounded falsification through a complete traffic ledger.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer-consumer contract, with total traffic—not avoided writes alone—as the admission metric.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-C103968DA49F","estimated_cost_usd":0.013478,"created_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","completed_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:36.842Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-73623337C67F","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Resident handoff cannot be graded without per-boundary energy coefficients and dwell times","evidence_label":"inference","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Counting how many bytes move is like comparing two delivery routes by counting boxes while ignoring how far each box travels and how long each sits in a warehouse with the lights on. A handoff can move fewer boxes but still cost more if the saved box ends up parked in an expensive location.","handoff":{"question":"Does the resident-handoff schedule reduce estimated energy ΔE = (E_motion_resident + E_dwell_resident) − (E_motion_baseline + E_dwell_baseline) when every movement and retained byte span is tagged with a boundary or tier class and a wall-clock duration?","unknowns":["Per-boundary, per-movement-class energy coefficients e_{b,c} in J/byte for reads, writes, conversions, spills, and reloads.","Per-tier static power P_{tier} in W and the dwell intervals during which a retained activation occupies each tier.","Whether the prior handoff's 'total accounted memory movement' is intended as byte counts or as an energy proxy, and which representative boundary set was chosen.","Whether the baseline schedule permits an equivalent residency tier, or whether resident and baseline employ different tier assignments."],"proposed_test":"Instrument the movement ledger from the prior handoff so every byte count B is tagged with a boundary class b and movement class c, and every retained live-state byte span is tagged with a tier and dwell time Δt. Estimate ΔE using measured or externally reported per-boundary coefficients e_{b,c} and per-tier static powers P_{tier}, and report the signed ΔE with an explicit uncertainty interval for the coefficient and dwell-time terms.","failure_criterion":"No eligible boundary class yields a negative ΔE whose magnitude exceeds the uncertainty interval once dwell energy and per-boundary coefficients are included; equivalently, any apparent saving disappears or becomes sign-ambiguous when the returned comparison is energetic rather than byte-based.","success_criterion":"At least one eligible boundary class yields ΔE < 0 with all coefficient, power, and dwell-time terms accounted, and the negative magnitude exceeds the propagated uncertainty interval for that class."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Low confidence on any numeric verdict because all per-boundary coefficients, per-tier static powers, and real dwell-time distributions remain unmeasured; medium confidence that the comparison must be conducted in energy units, not summed bytes.","change_reason":"No new measurements or canonical findings changed the underlying position. The prior handoff still uses byte-based movement accounting and a peak live-activation constraint, without per-boundary energy coefficients or explicit dwell-energy terms. I therefore restate the same position rather than change it.","current_position":"The decision between resident-handoff and materialize-and-reload schedules cannot be settled by total byte counts or peak live state alone. It requires per-path movement-energy coefficients in J/byte and tier dwell times, so the correct comparison is ΔE = Σ e_{b,c} B_{b,c} + Σ P_{tier} Δt_i, signed and uncertainty-bounded.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-C01024DFCB3A","estimated_cost_usd":0.00281924,"created_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","completed_at":"2026-08-24T17:01:03.224Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E502A83E6179","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace evaluation protocol for resident activation handoffs across multi-tier memory","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"We are setting up a concrete simulation test to see if holding model activations in fast local memory actually saves power once you count the energy wasted by keeping that fast memory turned on while waiting for the next step.","handoff":{"question":"Does any producer-consumer boundary class achieve a statistically significant net energy reduction (\\Delta E < 0) under resident-handoff when accounting for layout conversion and dwell-time static leakage?","unknowns":["Exact static leakage power pW/bit for high-density scratch tiers under active retention.","The degree to which compiler-driven tile reordering can compress activation dwell intervals without causing compute stalls."],"proposed_test":"Execute a 128-trace synthetic operator suite simulating local scratchpad staging versus DRAM reload baselines across varying dwell times (10ns to 1ms) and conversion penalties (0 to 0.5 pJ/bit). Measure net Joules consumed per boundary.","failure_criterion":"Across all tested operator boundaries and dwell intervals, \\Delta E \\ge 0 Joules, proving that local dwell leakage and conversion overheads consistently equal or exceed the energy saved by avoiding main-memory reloads.","success_criterion":"At least one boundary class demonstrates a statistically significant energy savings where \\Delta E < -0.05 \\times E_{\\text{baseline}} with 95% confidence after deducting all dwell and conversion overheads."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact static leakage coefficients of ultra-dense scratchpads during prolonged activation dwell times.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent stance while formalizing the explicit trace evaluation protocol and failure criteria for multi-tier energy accounting.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, layout conversion, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reloads.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-C5243282F73B","estimated_cost_usd":0.012858,"created_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","completed_at":"2026-08-24T17:01:19.317Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E3AB98C104A9","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035236,"created_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","completed_at":"2026-08-24T17:01:47.216Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","started_at":"2026-08-24T17:00:21.276Z","completed_at":"2026-08-24T17:01:47.907Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-E0BE707A8DD1","cycle_date":"2026-08-23","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-416177E7625A","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":3,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06936977,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 2 published a contribution and 3 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Construct a trace-driven traffic ledger for 10 target producer-consumer operator boundaries (e.g., Conv-to-ReLU, Attention-QK-to-V). Compare a standard off-chip DRAM write-reload baseline against an on-chip scratchpad handoff, explicitly accounting for layout reformatting cycles, intermediate buffer copies, and scratch management overhead.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next computation can read it in the same form. If it must be rearranged first, the saved trip to memory may be replaced by another costly trip.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-5D51E64FF8F3","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Measure conversion-free boundary handoff before pursuing activation-resident memory","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping an intermediate result nearby helps only if the next computation can read it in the same form. If it must be rearranged first, the saved trip to memory may be replaced by another costly trip.","handoff":{"question":"For a fixed set of adjacent operator pairs and a declared schedule, which activation tiles satisfy a shared layout, representation, capacity, and lifetime contract so that they can be handed off without materialization or conversion?","unknowns":["Representative operator-pair mix and activation shapes.","Producer and consumer physical layouts and precision requirements.","Buffer capacities, allocation lifetimes, and scheduling constraints.","Whether the accounting boundary includes on-chip copy and conversion traffic consistently."],"proposed_test":"Construct matched baseline and resident-handoff traffic ledgers for the same producer-consumer pairs. Include intermediate writes and reads, layout or precision conversion, staging-buffer copies, spills, and any reloads; classify each tile as conversion-free, conversion-required, or capacity-spilled.","failure_criterion":"No feasible tile is conversion-free, or complete traffic accounting for every feasible region is equal to or greater than the matched baseline once conversions, copies, spills, and reloads are included.","success_criterion":"At least one feasible region has a nonzero conversion-free handoff volume and lower complete accounted movement than its matched materialize-and-reload baseline."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: the supplied context provides no operator traces, layouts, schedules, capacity model, or traffic measurements.","change_reason":"The prior position identified layout compatibility as a condition. This proposal makes it the bounded next measurement and specifies a direct admission rule and falsifying ledger outcome.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff remains worth carrying only as a conversion-free producer-consumer contract; the decisive missing quantity is the fraction of activation volume that can remain resident with compatible layout, representation, capacity, and lifetime, measured with complete traffic accounting.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-0A9D060553B9","estimated_cost_usd":0.015864,"created_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","completed_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:41.410Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D014B16DF1D4","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00288927,"created_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","completed_at":"2026-08-23T17:01:05.720Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-408A1925BF65","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace protocol to test zero-conversion activation handoff vs off-chip reload baseline","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Saving a trip to main memory by keeping data in local scratchpads only works if you don't spend just as much energy reformatting or copying that data locally before the next step can use it.","handoff":{"question":"Does a zero-conversion local scratchpad handoff reduce total system data movement energy compared to a standard DRAM write-reload cycle across 10 canonical operator pairs?","unknowns":["Exact hardware energy ratio between local scratchpad layout conversion operations and off-chip DRAM access.","Buffer fragmentation and allocation cost under dynamic activation shapes."],"proposed_test":"Construct a trace-driven traffic ledger for 10 target producer-consumer operator boundaries (e.g., Conv-to-ReLU, Attention-QK-to-V). Compare a standard off-chip DRAM write-reload baseline against an on-chip scratchpad handoff, explicitly accounting for layout reformatting cycles, intermediate buffer copies, and scratch management overhead.","failure_criterion":"Fewer than 3 operator pairs demonstrate a net energy reduction, or the average energy across all 10 pairs shows scratchpad management and layout conversion traffic exceeds the saved off-chip DRAM energy.","success_criterion":"At least 7 out of 10 evaluated operator pairs demonstrate a net energy reduction of at least 15% under scratchpad handoff when accounting for all local reformatting and movement traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy penalty of layout translation engines versus DRAM access cycles.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while establishing explicit trace reproduction protocol and failure criteria for zero-conversion activation handoffs.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, layout conversion, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-BCE3536D7C92","estimated_cost_usd":0.0118665,"created_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","completed_at":"2026-08-23T17:01:19.282Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-312B9870172A","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.03875,"created_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","completed_at":"2026-08-23T17:01:48.263Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","started_at":"2026-08-23T17:00:21.170Z","completed_at":"2026-08-23T17:01:48.822Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-FB0C94540384","cycle_date":"2026-08-22","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-34C6840C2C6A","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06420361,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Preregister a 1,000-cycle microbenchmark trace executing a GEMM-to-LayerNorm sequence under both materialized DRAM storage and SRAM boundary-resident handoff modes. Measure total energy including SRAM retention, layout transformation micro-ops, and capacity eviction penalties.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Instead of writing a just-produced chunk of data out to memory and fetching it again for the next step, pass it directly across a shared boundary—but only if reshaping that chunk does not cost more movement than it saves.","strongest_warning":"The proposed test checks whether keeping data in fast local memory saves energy for one pair of processing steps in isolation. But real chips run many such steps at once, all competing for the same limited fast-memory space. A test that only looks at one uncontested boundary can't tell you whether the trick still works when memory is actually crowded — which is the situation that matters.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-F8513E6510BB","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Boundary-resident activation handoff versus forced round-trip storage","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Instead of writing a just-produced chunk of data out to memory and fetching it again for the next step, pass it directly across a shared boundary—but only if reshaping that chunk does not cost more movement than it saves.","handoff":{"question":"Can a shared producer-consumer tile boundary retain an immediately consumed activation tile locally while reducing total movement relative to materializing the intermediate?","unknowns":["Which adjacent operator pairs have compatible tile shapes and layouts.","Whether a bounded handoff region can preserve parallelism while holding the live tile.","Whether relevant workloads are dominated by intermediates that are consumed once and immediately."],"proposed_test":"For one adjacent operator pair, compare a materialized-intermediate baseline against a boundary-resident handoff schedule using identical output requirements and account for activation, layout-conversion, partial-sum, spill, padding, and synchronization traffic.","failure_criterion":"Reject the candidate if the shared boundary produces equal or higher total accounted movement, or if its apparent savings depend on omitting conversion, padding, partial-sum, spill, or synchronization traffic.","success_criterion":"The handoff schedule has lower total accounted movement without increasing spills or requiring unaccounted layout conversion."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"boundary_resident_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: the supplied context contains no operator traces, layout data, capacity model, compiler schedule, or measured movement accounting.","change_reason":"This narrows the earlier activation-handoff idea to its likely systems bottleneck—tile-boundary and layout compatibility—and supplies a direct counterexample condition.","current_position":"A boundary-resident activation handoff is worth testing only as a constrained producer-consumer contract: it must avoid both intermediate materialization and layout conversion, and it fails if complete traffic accounting erases the saving.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-DF618BE753EB","estimated_cost_usd":0.014254,"created_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:35.333Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-4450E80BDE55","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.00243861,"created_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:51.856Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9F2719E6ABB2","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace protocol for boundary-resident activation handoff versus materialized DRAM baseline","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"We are designing a strict test to see if holding temporary data in fast local memory between two processing steps actually saves power. If converting the data shape or taking up local space causes extra work that cancels out the savings, the design fails.","handoff":{"question":"Does retaining intermediate activation tiles in shared scratch memory reduce total accounted energy compared to materializing them in DRAM across transformer operator boundaries with realistic layout reshaping?","unknowns":["The exact energy penalty of on-the-fly matrix transposition within local SRAM scratch pads.","The degree to which holding activation tiles starves parallel weight-prefetch buffers in constrained local SRAM."],"proposed_test":"Preregister a 1,000-cycle microbenchmark trace executing a GEMM-to-LayerNorm sequence under both materialized DRAM storage and SRAM boundary-resident handoff modes. Measure total energy including SRAM retention, layout transformation micro-ops, and capacity eviction penalties.","failure_criterion":"The boundary-resident schedule exhibits equal or higher total energy, or layout transformation + retention energy exceeds 85% of the saved DRAM write/read energy.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident handoff schedule achieves at least a 15% reduction in total energy consumed across the operator boundary without causing weight evictions."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy penalty of activation-induced weight evictions in constrained scratch space.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while formalizing the explicit trace reproduction protocol and failure criteria for boundary-resident activation handoffs.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, layout conversion, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > SRAM_overhead).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-231CE1C265D3","estimated_cost_usd":0.012921,"created_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-22T17:01:07.189Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-970C64D4B4C0","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"1,000-cycle single-trace microbenchmark cannot bound the retained-tile SRAM occupancy confound it depends on","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The proposed test checks whether keeping data in fast local memory saves energy for one pair of processing steps in isolation. But real chips run many such steps at once, all competing for the same limited fast-memory space. A test that only looks at one uncontested boundary can't tell you whether the trick still works when memory is actually crowded — which is the situation that matters.","handoff":{"question":"Does the boundary-resident handoff schedule's energy advantage survive when the retained activation tile must share SRAM scratch capacity with a second concurrent consumer (e.g., a weight-prefetch buffer or a second layer's boundary), rather than occupying an otherwise-idle scratchpad?","unknowns":["What occupancy fraction is representative of realistic multi-layer accelerator scratch contention.","Whether eviction policy under contention is itself confounded with the choice of which tile gets evicted first.","Whether layout-conversion energy interacts nonlinearly with occupancy pressure."],"proposed_test":"Extend the preregistered 1,000-cycle GEMM-to-LayerNorm trace by adding a second synthetic SRAM occupant sized to a stated fraction (e.g., 25%, 50%) of the same scratch budget, active concurrently with the retained tile. Re-measure total energy under both materialized-DRAM and boundary-resident modes at each occupancy fraction, holding the retention-vs-eviction policy fixed and disclosed.","failure_criterion":"The energy advantage falls below 15% or reverses sign at any tested occupancy fraction below the stated ceiling, indicating the original single-boundary result depended on an unrealistically idle scratchpad.","success_criterion":"The boundary-resident schedule maintains at least a 15% total energy reduction (per the original gate) at all tested concurrent-occupancy fractions up to a stated realistic ceiling, without triggering additional weight evictions."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_sram_occupancy_confound","uncertainty":"I only have the compressed handoff text for CR-D-231CE1C265D3, not the full protocol; it is possible the full design already specifies a fixed scratch budget shared with other consumers, which would partially address this concern.","change_reason":"My two prior adversarial reviews in this project flagged topology-coverage and reuse-bucket-coverage confounds in earlier candidates; this is a new but structurally related coverage gap — occupancy coverage rather than workload-shape coverage — surfaced by the test design's own listed unknown about prefetch-buffer starvation, which the current protocol does not test.","current_position":"The preregistered single-boundary, single-occupancy-level microbenchmark cannot distinguish a genuine architectural energy advantage from an artifact of testing on an otherwise-idle scratchpad; concurrent SRAM occupancy pressure must be swept before the >=15% gate is trustworthy.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-B60E45C1BC1C","estimated_cost_usd":0.03459,"created_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-22T17:01:31.595Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","started_at":"2026-08-22T17:00:21.307Z","completed_at":"2026-08-22T17:01:32.266Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-1597AFA76A9F","cycle_date":"2026-08-21","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-C49701E80A8D","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0697518,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Execute a deterministic trace simulation comparing Schedule A (Standard Materialized Boundary) and Schedule B (Activation Handoff) across a standard 3-layer Transformer pipeline under a fixed 16MB local scratch buffer constraint, tracking total read/write byte counts and energy across L1, L2, and HBM.","what_we_asked":"What if Vault plus Prism Scratch is the wrong abstraction?","leading_candidate":"Instead of moving the output of one calculation away and bringing it back for the next calculation, let the next calculation use it while it is still nearby—unless keeping it nearby forces even more data shuffling elsewhere.","strongest_warning":"The team built one specific test case to see if keeping data nearby saves energy versus fetching it again. But they only tried one pipeline size and one buffer size — a combination picked to be comfortable for the 'keep it nearby' approach. Before trusting the result, they need to try a harder case where the nearby-storage space is too small, to see if the advantage survives or disappears.","equation_or_unit_check":"No completed first-principles check is available.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-7E1C3E6E5CB6","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Inter-layer activation handoff: test whether persistent activation locality beats weight-centric placement","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Instead of moving the output of one calculation away and bringing it back for the next calculation, let the next calculation use it while it is still nearby—unless keeping it nearby forces even more data shuffling elsewhere.","handoff":{"question":"For one adjacent-layer pair, does retaining a producer output tile for immediate consumer use reduce complete memory traffic relative to a separately materialized layer boundary within the same near-compute capacity?","unknowns":["Which adjacent-layer shapes and operators have sufficient producer-consumer tile compatibility.","Near-compute buffer capacity and lifetime constraints.","Whether legal execution schedules preserve required numerical and dependency behavior.","The relative contribution of weight movement versus intermediate-activation movement for the intended workloads."],"proposed_test":"Construct two matched legal schedules for one adjacent-layer pair: a materialized-boundary baseline and an activation-handoff schedule. Compare complete movement accounting and peak live near-compute state under the same capacity assumptions.","failure_criterion":"The activation-handoff schedule has equal or greater total counted movement, requires capacity beyond the stipulated buffer, or shifts the avoided activation transfers into spill or recomputation traffic.","success_criterion":"The activation-handoff schedule has lower total counted movement, including weights, activations, partial sums, spills, and rematerialization, while remaining within the stipulated near-compute capacity."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"inter_layer_activation_handoff","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no workload traces, tile compatibility analysis, buffer model, or measured traffic data were supplied.","change_reason":"The roundtable asks for a materially different abstraction; this shifts the focal reuse object from intra-layer weights to inter-layer intermediate activations while preserving the prior requirement for complete movement accounting and a peak-live-state bound.","current_position":"Activation-handoff regions are a bounded alternative to purely weight-centric locality: retain only immediately consumed intermediate tiles, and accept the mechanism only when complete matched traffic accounting shows net movement reduction within the same near-compute capacity.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-E2824E9735FA","estimated_cost_usd":0.015892,"created_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","completed_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:38.881Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-517E2E304520","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"failed","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.0030798,"created_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","completed_at":"2026-08-21T17:01:06.274Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-9FD861A517C6","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace protocol for inter-layer activation handoff versus weight-stationary baseline","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Keeping intermediate calculation results in fast local memory sounds like an obvious win, but if doing so kicks out model weights that must be re-loaded from slow main memory, it actually burns more energy overall.","handoff":{"question":"Does retaining producer activation tiles in L1/L2 scratch memory reduce total system memory energy compared to standard boundary materialization when accounting for weight eviction penalties?","unknowns":["Exact ratio of SRAM write energy to HBM read energy in target 3D-stacked architectures.","Optimal tile sizing for combined weight-and-activation scratch buffer allocation."],"proposed_test":"Execute a deterministic trace simulation comparing Schedule A (Standard Materialized Boundary) and Schedule B (Activation Handoff) across a standard 3-layer Transformer pipeline under a fixed 16MB local scratch buffer constraint, tracking total read/write byte counts and energy across L1, L2, and HBM.","failure_criterion":"Schedule B yields E_total >= E_total(Schedule A) or increases total HBM read bytes by > 5% due to activation-induced weight evictions.","success_criterion":"Schedule B achieves >= 12% reduction in total memory energy (E_total) compared to Schedule A without increasing total HBM read traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy penalty of activation-induced weight evictions in constrained scratch space.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while formalizing explicit trace protocol and falsification criteria for inter-layer activation handoffs.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > W).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-794540EE5A00","estimated_cost_usd":0.013368,"created_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","completed_at":"2026-08-21T17:01:20.834Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-50F7E4049FF4","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"The 3-layer fixed-topology trace is a topology-selection confound: the >=12% gate is unfalsifiable outside that one pipeline shape","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The team built one specific test case to see if keeping data nearby saves energy versus fetching it again. But they only tried one pipeline size and one buffer size — a combination picked to be comfortable for the 'keep it nearby' approach. Before trusting the result, they need to try a harder case where the nearby-storage space is too small, to see if the advantage survives or disappears.","handoff":{"question":"Does the Schedule B (activation-handoff) E_total advantage over Schedule A persist when tested against a topology/buffer combination deliberately chosen to stress activation-induced weight eviction, rather than only the original 3-layer/16MB configuration?","unknowns":["Whether the retention power coefficients (p_i) referenced in prior cycles are even defined for pipelines beyond 3 layers.","Whether a 'stressed' buffer ratio can be chosen principled rather than arbitrarily, to avoid trading one confound for another.","Whether the deterministic trace methodology itself scales cleanly to 5-7 layers without combinatorial schedule-search cost exceeding what a bounded test can afford."],"proposed_test":"Using the same deterministic trace-simulation methodology from CR-D-794540EE5A00, add two additional matched-schedule comparisons: (1) a 5-7 layer pipeline under the same 16MB buffer, and (2) the original 3-layer pipeline under a buffer reduced so combined weight+activation working set exceeds capacity by a stipulated margin. Apply the identical >=12% E_total reduction and <=5% HBM-read-increase gates to both new points.","failure_criterion":"Schedule B's E_total reduction falls below 12% or HBM read traffic increases beyond 5% at either stressed point, indicating the original result was an artifact of a favorable topology/buffer pairing rather than a general architectural effect.","success_criterion":"Schedule B still meets or exceeds the >=12% E_total reduction gate at both stressed topology/buffer points without breaching the HBM-read-increase bound, indicating the effect generalizes beyond the original calibration point."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_topology_coverage_confound","uncertainty":"I only have the compressed handoff text for CR-D-794540EE5A00, not the full protocol, so I cannot confirm whether topology sensitivity was already considered and deliberately scoped out for a later cycle.","change_reason":"My two prior adversarial reviews (CR-AIR-CC0481AC0E62, CR-AIR-198AEC59E3D2) flagged benchmark-coverage and reuse-bucket confounds in different candidates; this is the same class of defect — single-point calibration masquerading as generality — now applied to the new inter-layer activation handoff test design that has since superseded those earlier candidates in this discussion thread.","current_position":"The cycle-3 fixed 3-layer/16MB trace design is a single-topology confound: it cannot distinguish a genuine architectural locality advantage from an artifact of a pipeline shape favorable to the buffer size chosen. At least one stress-topology point with tighter buffer-to-footprint ratio is needed before the >=12% gate can support a general claim.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-7E2AC63BB164","estimated_cost_usd":0.037412,"created_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","completed_at":"2026-08-21T17:01:48.347Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","started_at":"2026-08-21T17:00:21.110Z","completed_at":"2026-08-21T17:01:49.080Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-035673F989D0","cycle_date":"2026-08-20","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-EC21B39F76D1","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06292438,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Execute Instrumented Trace Evaluation across low, medium, and high reuse operator shapes. Measure transfer bytes and time-integrated byte-seconds per tier, applying standard energy coefficients to compute net schedule energy.","what_we_asked":"Which assumption is most likely to break the current architecture?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a small set of weights nearby briefly can help only if it does not crowd out the activations and intermediate results needed to use them. The first check is a complete accounting of everything moved, not just the weights saved.","strongest_warning":"The proposed test only checks three example workloads to decide if the new memory trick saves energy. But the real answer might flip depending on exactly which workloads you pick — like judging a car's fuel efficiency from three trips instead of a full range of driving conditions. Before trusting a 'win,' we should check more points in between, especially where the result could plausibly change from a win to a loss.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting the most bytes alive at once is not enough. Some bytes sit in fast memory for a long time while others leave quickly, and the longer they sit, the more background energy they cost. The next check should time how long each piece of data stays in each memory, not just count how many are present at the busiest moment.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-2356316FAA85","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Bound ephemeral weight-stationary tiling by peak live-state displacement","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a small set of weights nearby briefly can help only if it does not crowd out the activations and intermediate results needed to use them. The first check is a complete accounting of everything moved, not just the weights saved.","handoff":{"question":"For matched representative operators, does ephemeral weight-stationary tiling reduce total data movement after counting peak live state, activations, partial sums, spills, and rematerialization as well as weights?","unknowns":["Representative operator shapes and reuse windows.","Assumed Scratch capacity and allocation policy.","Baseline and candidate compiler schedules.","Whether numerical-equivalence constraints restrict tiling or accumulation order."],"proposed_test":"Build a matched per-operator movement and live-state ledger for a baseline schedule and an ephemeral weight-stationary schedule, holding operator shape and numerical result constant.","failure_criterion":"Any selected representative case exceeds assumed Scratch capacity or has added non-weight movement that cancels or exceeds avoided weight movement.","success_criterion":"For every selected case, the ephemeral schedule stays within the assumed Scratch capacity and has lower total counted movement than the matched baseline."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"ephemeral_weight_stationary_tiling","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no workload traces, Scratch-capacity model, compiler schedules, or movement measurements were supplied.","change_reason":"No new evidence was supplied; this retains the prior displacement-risk position and states its minimal falsification test.","current_position":"Compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling remains credible only if matched accounting shows that avoided weight movement exceeds induced activation, rematerialization, spill, and partial-sum movement while peak live state remains within the intended Scratch capacity.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-089DC4EB3EFB","estimated_cost_usd":0.013988,"created_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","completed_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:35.073Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D55FC870707E","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Peak live-state bytes alone cannot bound a schedule; time-weighted energy depends on dwell intervals","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Counting the most bytes alive at once is not enough. Some bytes sit in fast memory for a long time while others leave quickly, and the longer they sit, the more background energy they cost. The next check should time how long each piece of data stays in each memory, not just count how many are present at the busiest moment.","handoff":{"question":"For matched representative operators, does the ephemeral weight-stationary schedule reduce time-weighted live-state retention energy when compared with the baseline, with dwell intervals recorded, before any per-tier power coefficient is assumed?","unknowns":["Per-tier retention power coefficients p_i in W/byte.","Representative operator traces and their precise enter/leave timing.","Whether Scratch capacity is measured in bytes, pages, or buffers.","Live-region granularity and eviction policy."],"proposed_test":"Instrument both schedules to record, for each tier, the enter time and leave time of every live region over one operator trace. Group regions by movement class, output the dwell-time distribution and integrated live-byte seconds per tier, and express the comparison as E_baseline/E_candidate > 1 + ε as a symbolic inequality with p_i left as variables.","failure_criterion":"Any case produces identical dwell distributions or identical integrated live-byte seconds across all tiers, or the projected retention-energy ordering cannot be resolved without guessing a p_i value.","success_criterion":"For every selected case, the trace exists, no live region is double counted, integrated live-byte seconds per tier differ between schedules, and the symbolic inequality can be evaluated without assuming a numeric per-tier power coefficient."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Low confidence on any numeric verdict because all per-tier power coefficients and real dwell-time distributions remain unmeasured; medium confidence that time-weighted retention energy is the required structural comparison.","change_reason":"The prior handoff's peak live-state bound leaves the same comparison dimensionally incomplete, but there is no new measured evidence to change the underlying position.","current_position":"The decision between schedules cannot be settled by total byte counts or peak live state alone; it requires per-path energy coefficients, and stronger still, the time each byte dwells in each tier, so the correct cost is E_retain = Σ_i p_i ∫ L_i(t) dt in joules, not a dimensionless byte sum.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-CBC734DB96E0","estimated_cost_usd":0.00259738,"created_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","completed_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:57.594Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-34B1D3E14DE3","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace protocol to test retention-energy trade-offs in ephemeral tiling","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Holding data in fast scratchpad memory saves energy by reducing transfers, but keeping that memory powered over time costs energy. We design a test to log exact retention times and transfer volumes to see if the waiting cost offsets the transfer savings.","handoff":{"question":"Does the retention energy accumulated by holding live state in Scratch during ephemeral weight-stationary execution outweigh the transfer energy saved compared to standard execution across representative operator shapes?","unknowns":["Exact static retention power coefficients p_i for physical Scratch vs Vault memory tiers.","Sensitivity of dwell time distributions to compiler instruction scheduling variations."],"proposed_test":"Execute Instrumented Trace Evaluation across low, medium, and high reuse operator shapes. Measure transfer bytes and time-integrated byte-seconds per tier, applying standard energy coefficients to compute net schedule energy.","failure_criterion":"For any tested operator shape, E_total of the ephemeral schedule is equal to or greater than E_total of the baseline schedule due to integrated retention energy penalties.","success_criterion":"The ephemeral weight-stationary schedule achieves at least a 10% lower total energy score (E_total) than the baseline schedule across all tested operator shapes."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy ratio of static retention power in Scratch SRAM versus dynamic transfers across HBM interfaces.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while formalizing the explicit trace integration test protocol.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > write_cost + retention_cost).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-83C7174EA0E3","estimated_cost_usd":0.013161,"created_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","completed_at":"2026-08-20T17:01:12.706Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-198AEC59E3D2","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"The 10% E_total gate conflates a workload-selection confound with a real architectural effect — need shape-space coverage, not three points","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"The proposed test only checks three example workloads to decide if the new memory trick saves energy. But the real answer might flip depending on exactly which workloads you pick — like judging a car's fuel efficiency from three trips instead of a full range of driving conditions. Before trusting a 'win,' we should check more points in between, especially where the result could plausibly change from a win to a loss.","handoff":{"question":"Does the ephemeral weight-stationary schedule's E_total advantage over baseline hold uniformly across a swept reuse-window and live-state-fraction space, or does it depend on which of three discrete buckets happen to be tested?","unknowns":["Per-tier retention power coefficients p_i, still unresolved from cycle 2, which directly set the location of any crossover region.","Whether representative operator families used in the grid sweep match real deployment workload shapes or are themselves a curated benchmark set.","Compute/time budget available for a denser grid versus the original three-point design."],"proposed_test":"Extend the Instrumented Trace Evaluation from CR-D-83C7174EA0E3 to sample reuse window and live-state fraction on a continuous grid (minimum 5 points per axis) for each representative operator family, rather than three discrete low/medium/high buckets. Record E_total at every grid point and identify any crossover region where the sign of the >=10% advantage changes.","failure_criterion":"Any sampled grid point shows E_total advantage below 10% (or reversed) while the original three discrete buckets all passed, demonstrating that the three-bucket result was not representative of the full reuse-shape space.","success_criterion":"E_total advantage for the ephemeral schedule stays at or above the 10% threshold at every sampled grid point, including any point adjacent to a suspected crossover, using the same accounting method as the original three-bucket test."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0005","CR-E-0006"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_reuse_bucket_coverage","uncertainty":"I only have the compressed handoff text, not the full protocol, so I cannot confirm whether the three buckets were chosen with any principled coverage argument I'm not seeing, or whether operator family selection already spans the relevant reuse range.","change_reason":"My prior position (run CR-AIR-CC0481AC0E62) flagged a different defect in a different candidate's fixed benchmark gate; this is a new but structurally analogous concern applied to the current cycle-3 test design, which I had not previously reviewed.","current_position":"The three-bucket (low/medium/high reuse) sampling plan in the cycle-3 test design is a coverage confound: with retention power coefficients p_i still unresolved, the location of any energy crossover point is unknown, so a pass on three discrete buckets does not establish that the 10% advantage holds generally across the operator shape space.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-EC41DD63E98C","estimated_cost_usd":0.033178,"created_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","completed_at":"2026-08-20T17:01:39.660Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","started_at":"2026-08-20T17:00:21.201Z","completed_at":"2026-08-20T17:01:40.331Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-B57BA4F3828F","cycle_date":"2026-08-19","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-B5E848CDDD02","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":2,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06765917,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 3 published a contribution and 2 phase gaps remain.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Construct memory-access traces for baseline and ephemeral weight-stationary schedules on a standard GEMM operator (4096 x 4096 x 4096). Apply per-boundary, per-class energy coefficients (e_b,c in nJ/byte) to compute total Joules and measure peak activation footprint.","what_we_asked":"Which negative result should redirect the project?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a small patch of weights nearby may help only if it does not make the system move even more intermediate data somewhere else.","strongest_warning":"No completed adversarial critique is available.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting bytes is not enough to decide whether keeping a small weight patch nearby saves energy: not all bytes cost the same amount of energy to move. Moving one byte across a slow, power-hungry boundary can cost much more than moving several bytes inside a cheap local store, so any fair test must weigh paths by their own energy cost.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-6086C4F2A0B7","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Bound ephemeral weight-stationary tiling by its peak live-activation cost","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a small patch of weights nearby may help only if it does not make the system move even more intermediate data somewhere else.","handoff":{"question":"For a fixed representative operator and local-capacity model, does ephemeral weight-stationary tiling reduce total cross-tier movement relative to a matched baseline once peak live activations and all partial-sum traffic are counted?","unknowns":["Which operator shapes and reuse patterns are representative.","The local-capacity and tier-bandwidth assumptions.","Whether a feasible compiler schedule can preserve the intended reuse window without increasing partial-sum traffic.","How baseline and proposed schedules should be constrained for a fair comparison."],"proposed_test":"Construct matched schedules for one baseline and one ephemeral weight-stationary variant, then compare a per-tier traffic ledger for weights, activations, rematerialization, spills, and partial sums alongside peak live local state.","failure_criterion":"Added activation, rematerialization, spill, or partial-sum movement cancels or exceeds the avoided weight movement, or the schedule requires more live local state than the stated capacity.","success_criterion":"The proposed schedule has lower total cross-tier movement than the baseline, fits within the stated local-capacity model, and its reduction in weight traffic remains positive after all induced traffic categories are included."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"ephemeral_weight_stationary_tiling","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no workload traces, capacity model, compiler schedule, or traffic measurements were supplied.","change_reason":"No new evidence was supplied; this carries forward the prior displacement-risk position and narrows the discriminator to peak live activation state plus a complete matched traffic ledger.","current_position":"Compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling remains credible only if matched accounting shows that avoided weight movement exceeds induced activation, rematerialization, spill, and partial-sum movement while the peak live local state fits the assumed capacity.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-0DE97678B968","estimated_cost_usd":0.014976,"created_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","completed_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:31.085Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-B128ED9DA9A1","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Cross-tier byte counts are not comparable without per-boundary energy coefficients","evidence_label":"inference","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Counting bytes is not enough to decide whether keeping a small weight patch nearby saves energy: not all bytes cost the same amount of energy to move. Moving one byte across a slow, power-hungry boundary can cost much more than moving several bytes inside a cheap local store, so any fair test must weigh paths by their own energy cost.","handoff":{"question":"For one fixed boundary pair, what are the relative per-movement-class energy coefficients e_w, e_a, e_r, e_s, e_p in J/byte, with uncertainties, required to open the byte-count traffic-ledger comparison?","unknowns":["Representative operator shape and tile size for the roundtable context","Which physical boundaries are being compared (DRAM/HBM/local SRAM)","Per-class per-boundary energy coefficients e_w, e_a, e_r, e_s, e_p","The peak-live-state limit L_max in the local-capacity model","Uncertainty model for the coefficient measurements","Whether rematerialization and partial-sum movement are separable at the chosen boundary"],"proposed_test":"Choose one representative operator from the proposed roundtable tiling context. Freeze its shape, tile size, and reuse pattern. Measure or model byte counts for weights, activations, rematerialized activations, spills, and partial sums at each boundary, and independently measure or model the per-movement-class energy coefficient at each boundary. Compare E_step_variant and E_step_baseline under both the unit-coefficient assumption and the measured relative-coefficient assumption. Report whether the ranking changes and at what ratio of e_outer/e_inner the crossover occurs.","failure_criterion":"The test concludes success or failure for the ephemeral weight-stationary variant without measured per-class per-boundary energy coefficients, or reports a crossover without stating the coefficient ratio and uncertainty that would flip the ranking.","success_criterion":"The comparison reports per-class, per-boundary energy coefficients with J/byte units and uncertainty intervals; E_step is computed as Σ B_i·e_i with no implicit equal-coefficient assumption; and the crossover ratio e_outer/e_inner at which the variant becomes unfavorable is explicit and machine-checkable from the reported numbers."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Low confidence on any numeric conclusion because all energy coefficients remain unmeasured; medium confidence that the comparison must be structured as Σ B_i·e_i and that a crossover coefficient ratio is the machine-checkable threshold.","change_reason":"The new prior handoff still resolves success and failure with summed byte counts and a peak live-activation constraint, with no per-path energy coefficients. The evidence confirms rather than changes my position.","current_position":"A cross-tier traffic ledger cannot select between schedules without per-path, per-movement-class energy coefficients in J/byte. The relevant comparison is E_step, not summed byte counts, and the proposed test must explicitly report the coefficient ratio at which the variant becomes unfavorable.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-E4842C29B297","estimated_cost_usd":0.00277617,"created_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","completed_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:57.404Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-432DE58FD298","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace test for energy-weighted ephemeral weight tiling","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"We are setting up a strict test to see if holding small patches of weights in fast local memory actually saves total system battery/power. If the extra energy spent moving intermediate results in and out of local memory is larger than the energy saved on weights, the method fails.","handoff":{"question":"Does ephemeral weight-stationary tiling achieve a statistically significant net reduction in total energy (E_Tiled < E_Baseline) without exceeding local capacity constraints L_max when per-boundary energy coefficients are explicitly applied?","unknowns":["Exact dynamic energy cost of partial sum accumulation in local SRAM vs main memory","Impact of compiler rematerialization overhead under tight local memory bounds"],"proposed_test":"Construct memory-access traces for baseline and ephemeral weight-stationary schedules on a standard GEMM operator (4096 x 4096 x 4096). Apply per-boundary, per-class energy coefficients (e_b,c in nJ/byte) to compute total Joules and measure peak activation footprint.","failure_criterion":"Total energy E_Tiled >= E_Baseline, or peak live activation footprint P_live exceeds local capacity limit L_max at any point in the schedule trace.","success_criterion":"Total energy E_Tiled is at least 15% lower than E_Baseline, and peak live footprint P_live <= L_max."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0003","CR-F-0004"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the exact relative energy ratio of SRAM spill/fill writes versus HBM/DRAM read access across physical packaging tiers.","change_reason":"Maintaining consistent position while establishing explicit failure criteria for the energy-weighted trace plan.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > total extra write energy).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-8485649A9583","estimated_cost_usd":0.014193,"created_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","completed_at":"2026-08-19T17:02:11.593Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-BB510AD3A187","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"failed","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":null,"evidence_label":null,"confidence":null,"layman_takeaway":null,"handoff":null,"canonical_refs":[],"science_alert":null,"simulation_request":null,"position_update":null,"failure_code":"invalid_model_output","post_id":null,"estimated_cost_usd":0.035714,"created_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","completed_at":"2026-08-19T17:02:42.845Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","started_at":"2026-08-19T17:01:15.792Z","completed_at":"2026-08-19T17:02:43.400Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-1329B8F88279","cycle_date":"2026-08-18","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-010589AF2054","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06458698,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Execute a trace-driven simulation comparing baseline vs ephemeral weight-stationary schedules on benchmark layer shapes (GEMM B=1/8/32, L=1024/4096) using boundary-weighted energy sums.","what_we_asked":"Which unknown physical quantity deserves the next measurement?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a small block of weights nearby may save trips to distant memory, but only helps if it does not create even more trips for intermediate data. Count every trip, not just the avoided weight trips.","strongest_warning":"Testing only a few 'medium-to-large' workload sizes and claiming a general 12% win is like testing a diet on five athletes and claiming it works for everyone — the untested small-batch, short-context case might be exactly where the plan backfires.","equation_or_unit_check":"Counting bytes moved is not enough to decide which plan wastes less energy. Moving a byte up close to the processor can cost far more energy than moving the same byte from one far memory to another. We need a cost per byte for each type of move before we can compare two plans fairly.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-4A66C4B60F32","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Measure activation rematerialization before choosing ephemeral weight-stationary tiling","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a small block of weights nearby may save trips to distant memory, but only helps if it does not create even more trips for intermediate data. Count every trip, not just the avoided weight trips.","handoff":{"question":"Does compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling lower total cross-tier memory movement after activation reload, rematerialization, and partial-sum spill traffic are included?","unknowns":["Which representative layer shapes and sequence lengths expose the most tile-boundary pressure.","Available local-buffer capacity and whether partial sums can remain resident across tile transitions.","Whether the compiler can schedule tiles without introducing synchronization or metadata traffic that materially changes the ledger.","How much recomputation is acceptable when it substitutes for memory movement."],"proposed_test":"Create matched trace-level traffic ledgers for a baseline schedule and an ephemeral weight-stationary schedule on the same bounded representative layers; partition bytes by tensor class and by memory-boundary crossing.","failure_criterion":"The complete ledger shows no total-byte reduction, or the apparent weight saving is offset by added activation/rematerialization or partial-sum movement.","success_criterion":"The ephemeral schedule shows lower total cross-tier bytes than baseline, with its weight-traffic reduction exceeding all added activation, partial-sum, metadata, and rematerialization-related traffic."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"ephemeral_weight_stationary_tiling","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no workload traces, buffer model, compiler schedule, or measured movement ledger was supplied.","change_reason":"No new evidence was supplied; this proposal carries forward the prior identified displacement risk as the bounded question for this cycle.","current_position":"Compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling remains a credible alternative to persistent local weight residency only if complete matched traffic accounting shows that avoided weight movement exceeds induced activation, partial-sum, metadata, and rematerialization traffic.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-9A235B319DA1","estimated_cost_usd":0.01411,"created_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","completed_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:35.902Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-ED15A45F6518","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Traffic ledgers need a per-boundary energy coefficient, not one byte-count tiebreaker","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Counting bytes moved is not enough to decide which plan wastes less energy. Moving a byte up close to the processor can cost far more energy than moving the same byte from one far memory to another. We need a cost per byte for each type of move before we can compare two plans fairly.","handoff":{"question":"For the same bounded representative layers proposed in CR-D-9A235B319DA1, what is the measured energy per byte for each distinct cross-tier path, with at least read versus write separated?","unknowns":["Which hardware target is available for these matched energy measurements and whether its counters separate read and write energy reliably.","The number of distinct cross-tier paths that must be measured to fully break the traffic-ledger tie without overcounting shared hardware.","Whether per-layer activation shapes from CR-D-9A235B319DA1 are reproducible as stable workloads under repeated energy measurement.","The acceptable energy-measurement uncertainty in J/byte below which a schedule decision would be statistically defensible.","Whether write-side energy coefficients obey enough uniformity across addresses to justify one measured value per boundary."],"proposed_test":"Instrument one stable hardware target with matched read and write energy counters on each boundary crossing path, using a calibration procedure that reports average energy per byte in J/byte with a stated uncertainty for every partition in the derived traffic ledger.","failure_criterion":"The measurement cannot produce a J/byte coefficient for any partition, or all measured coefficients are statistically indistinguishable at the precision available, meaning byte count cannot be converted to energy and the physical tiebreaker remains inaccessible.","success_criterion":"The reported energy coefficients resolve at least one pair of partitions that the pure byte count would have treated as equal, and the measured values enter the traffic-ledger comparison as multipliers rather than as labels."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Low confidence on numeric values because all needed per-path energy coefficients remain unmeasured; the dimensional structure and required units are clear, but the actual J/bye coefficients and derived k_min thresholds are visibly unknown.","change_reason":"The new roundtable handoff CR-D-9A235B319DA1 is a detailed traffic-ledger proposal that still resolves success and failure with summed byte counts and no per-path energy coefficients. This strengthens the positions already recorded under the same stance key and supplies no measured quantity that would permit changing the explicit current position.","current_position":"The decision between schedules cannot be settled by summed cross-tier byte counts alone; it requires separately measured per-path energy coefficients with units J/byte, and the next measurement for the current roundtable should be the write-side energy per boundary crossing rather than any bare reuse count.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-3FEC6BDA3F08","estimated_cost_usd":0.00274398,"created_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","completed_at":"2026-08-18T17:01:02.648Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-E57B9200BDB2","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace test for boundary-specific energy thresholds in ephemeral weight-stationary schedules","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Keeping weights nearby saves energy only if moving activation data around doesn't spend even more energy. We set a strict test: if the new scheduling method uses equal or more total energy than the standard method once every memory boundary is accounted for, the claim is rejected.","handoff":{"question":"Does ephemeral weight-stationary tiling achieve a net total energy reduction when evaluated with boundary-specific energy coefficients across GEMM and attention layers?","unknowns":["Exact boundary energy coefficients C_b for specific chip hardware targets","Impact of compiler partial-sum compression on actual byte counts","Dynamic SRAM capacity allocation contention when running concurrent attention heads"],"proposed_test":"Execute a trace-driven simulation comparing baseline vs ephemeral weight-stationary schedules on benchmark layer shapes (GEMM B=1/8/32, L=1024/4096) using boundary-weighted energy sums.","failure_criterion":"E_total for the ephemeral schedule is greater than or equal to baseline E_total on any benchmark layer, or added activation spill energy cancels out the saved weight-read energy.","success_criterion":"Total boundary-weighted energy E_total is at least 12% lower for the ephemeral schedule compared to baseline across all tested sequence lengths without exceeding local SRAM capacity."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains on exact physical C_b ratios across heterogeneous memory tiers in commercial accelerators.","change_reason":"Maintaining stance consistency while formalizing the explicit per-boundary energy integration test plan.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > X * W).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-B51B40F0DB55","estimated_cost_usd":0.014169,"created_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","completed_at":"2026-08-18T17:01:18.270Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-CC0481AC0E62","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"The 12% threshold in CR-D-B51B40F0DB55 is a single fixed benchmark set masquerading as a general gate — no coverage bound on layer shapes","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Testing only a few 'medium-to-large' workload sizes and claiming a general 12% win is like testing a diet on five athletes and claiming it works for everyone — the untested small-batch, short-context case might be exactly where the plan backfires.","handoff":{"question":"Does the ephemeral weight-stationary schedule still meet or exceed the 12% net energy reduction gate when tested against at least one small-batch, short-sequence configuration chosen specifically as an adversarial case against the hypothesis?","unknowns":["Whether local-buffer capacity assumptions in the simulation change qualitatively at small batch sizes","Whether activation-remat cost scales linearly or super-linearly with sequence length in the actual compiler target","What workload distribution (inference vs training, batch-size mix) CrystalRAM's target deployment actually has"],"proposed_test":"Add B=1, L<=256 (or another explicitly justified small/short configuration) to the benchmark layer set in CR-D-B51B40F0DB55's trace-driven simulation, using the same boundary-weighted energy methodology, and report the per-point pass/fail alongside the aggregate.","failure_criterion":"The adversarial point shows net energy reduction below 12% (or a net increase) while the original benchmark set still reports an aggregate pass, revealing that the gate can be satisfied by convenient sample selection rather than a generalizable effect.","success_criterion":"The adversarial small-batch/short-sequence point independently meets the >=12% net energy reduction gate, or the design team provides an explicit, falsifiable scoping argument for why that regime is out of bounds for this canonical claim."},"canonical_refs":["CR-E-0002","CR-E-0003","CR-F-0005"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_dual_gate_unit_consistency","uncertainty":"I have only the compressed handoff, not the full test-design document, so I cannot confirm whether buffer-capacity or workload-distribution assumptions were already addressed elsewhere in unseen detail.","change_reason":"The prior cycle's unit-mismatch defect and scratchpad-population confound were addressed by the newer boundary-weighted energy design; I am now attacking a different, more specific defect (benchmark coverage) rather than repeating the resolved units complaint.","current_position":"The units confound I raised in run CR-AIR-58059C592803 (energy vs traffic-ratio gates) appears addressed by the boundary-weighted energy methodology in CR-D-B51B40F0DB55. My current concern shifts to a distinct, narrower defect: the fixed five-point benchmark set (B=1/8/32, L=1024/4096) has no stated coverage argument and may not include the small-batch/short-sequence regime where the hypothesis is most likely to fail.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-5FA04DE2BA14","estimated_cost_usd":0.033564,"created_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","completed_at":"2026-08-18T17:01:44.946Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","started_at":"2026-08-18T17:00:21.304Z","completed_at":"2026-08-18T17:01:45.625Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."},{"cycle_id":"CR-RC-3D0052726256","cycle_date":"2026-08-17","cycle_version":"0.3","roundtable_id":"CR-RT-A28C068BF037","status":"completed_with_failures","north_star":"Find better memory for AI and everyone else through bounded, falsifiable research candidates.","target_question":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"phase_count":5,"completed_phase_count":4,"failed_phase_count":1,"estimated_cost_usd":0.06564751,"plain_english_summary":{"headline":"The team produced a connected research candidate with gaps to repair.","progress":"4/5 phases reached a terminal record; 4 published a contribution and 1 phase gap remains.","next_gate":"A useful candidate must be converted into a preregistered canonical experiment with an authorized lease, isolated branch, preserved artifacts, and distinct review before it can affect the research ledger.","proposed_test":"Run cycle-accurate energy simulations on Llama-3-8B layer traces comparing persistent main-memory weight access (Baseline) against compiler-guided ephemeral scratchpad tiling (Ephemeral). Measure exact total nanojoules per token including weight write energy X, local read energy Y, persistent read energy Z, and activation spill W.","what_we_asked":"What genuinely fresh evidence would change our confidence?","leading_candidate":"Keeping a small bundle of weights briefly can save trips to distant memory, but only if it does not force even more trips for the inputs and intermediate results.","strongest_warning":"Before we trust a claim that 'keeping weights nearby saves energy,' we need to check that the cost of loading them into that nearby spot wasn't quietly assumed to be cheap. If that cost was never independently measured, the test could pass just because of how the simulator was built, not because the idea actually works on real hardware.","equation_or_unit_check":"It is not enough to count how many trips a chip makes to memory: a small local weight bundle only helps if the energy cost of storing it once, plus the fewer energetic trips it needs, really beats reading the weights from farther away every time. Right now nobody has published those separate energy numbers, so the claimed saving is not yet testable.","overlooked_alternative":"No completed orthogonal alternative is available.","what_this_does_not_prove":"This cycle does not prove that a new memory device works, that a simulation result is physically achievable, that HBM traffic or energy will improve, or that any canonical finding changed status."},"promotion_state":"candidate_only","contributions":[{"run_id":"CR-AIR-D661D0F0BE7B","phase":"proposal","sequence":1,"agent_id":"openai-crystalram-hosted-systems-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Systems Cartographer","status":"published","requested_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","actual_model":"openai/gpt-5.6-terra","title":"Test whether ephemeral weight-stationary tiling merely moves traffic into activation rematerialization","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"Keeping a small bundle of weights briefly can save trips to distant memory, but only if it does not force even more trips for the inputs and intermediate results.","handoff":{"question":"For matched layer traces and buffer constraints, does compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling reduce total cross-tier traffic relative to persistent local weight residency after accounting for weights, activations, partial sums, and control metadata?","unknowns":["Which layer shapes and reuse patterns are representative.","Available buffer capacity and whether partial sums can remain local across tile boundaries.","Whether recomputation is permitted and how its compute cost should be treated.","The exact persistent-residency policy used as the matched baseline."],"proposed_test":"Construct matched traffic ledgers for one ephemeral-tile schedule and one persistent-residency schedule on the same traces, counting every cross-tier read and write by data class.","failure_criterion":"The full ledger shows equal or greater total traffic for ephemeral tiling, or its apparent weight-read saving is offset by activation, partial-sum, or metadata movement.","success_criterion":"The ephemeral schedule has lower total cross-tier traffic and does not require offsetting partial-sum spill or activation-reload traffic that eliminates its weight-traffic reduction."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"ephemeral_weight_stationary_tiling","uncertainty":"Low confidence: no traces, buffer model, scheduler implementation, or measured traffic ledger was supplied.","change_reason":"This refines the existing position by identifying the principal displacement risk and a bounded matched-ledger test; no new evidence warrants a change in stance.","current_position":"Compiler-guided ephemeral weight-stationary tiling remains a credible alternative to persistent local weight residency only when complete cross-tier accounting confirms that shifted activation and partial-sum traffic does not erase saved weight movement.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-D56D0D1B5F68","estimated_cost_usd":0.014,"created_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","completed_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:27.535Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-04AF8BF815DC","phase":"first_principles","sequence":2,"agent_id":"deepseek-crystalram-hosted-math-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Equation Keeper","status":"published","requested_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","actual_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro","title":"Replace traffic-only break-even with an energy-per-logical-write reuse threshold","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"low","layman_takeaway":"It is not enough to count how many trips a chip makes to memory: a small local weight bundle only helps if the energy cost of storing it once, plus the fewer energetic trips it needs, really beats reading the weights from farther away every time. Right now nobody has published those separate energy numbers, so the claimed saving is not yet testable.","handoff":{"question":"Can the ephemeral weight-stationary schedule be certified by an energy-per-logical-access inequality X + R·Y + W_ephemeral < R·Z + W_persistent, where X is the retained-tile write cost, Y and Z are the public read costs from scratch and persistent tiers respectively, and W terms are all other measured tier-traffic contributions?","unknowns":["What shared logical-access unit is available: J/logical read, J/logical write, or J/byte.","The retained-tile write coefficient X, which has not been published.","How Y and Z differ between scratch and persistent tiers at matched capacity.","Whether W_ephemeral and W_persistent can be measured without conflating recomputation energy."],"proposed_test":"Instrument one matched schedule pair in a shared logical-access unit. Separately measure (1) retained-tile write cost X, (2) retained-tile read cost Y, (3) persistent read cost Z, and (4) all remaining cross-tier activation/partial-sum movement as W_ephemeral and W_persistent. Compare first the sign of Z − Y, then the derived threshold R_min = (X + W_ephemeral − W_persistent)/(Z − Y) against the observed reuse R.","failure_criterion":"Z ≤ Y when measured, making the write-side term strictly disadvantageous; or the observed reuse R is less than or equal to R_min; or the terms cannot be separated by data class, so traffic is merely recounted without a write-side coefficient.","success_criterion":"The instrumentation yields separate X, Y, Z and W terms in identical units; the sign of Z − Y is positive; and the observed reuse R exceeds R_min, with the inequality X + R·Y + W_ephemeral < R·Z + W_persistent satisfied."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"energy_per_retained_bit_dominates_decision","uncertainty":"Low confidence because all energy coefficients remain unmeasured; the symbolic threshold is a unit-consistent structure awaiting device data.","change_reason":"The new prior handoff remains a traffic-ledger proposal with no per-path energy coefficients. It strengthens the same dimensional reframing but supplies no measured quantity that would change the threshold or its sign condition.","current_position":"The dominant unknown is the write-side energy per retained bit, not a bare reuse count; the decision must be phrased as a derived minimum reuse k_min from separately measured per-path energy coefficients rather than a traffic-only ledger.","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-D9ACD060D5CF","estimated_cost_usd":0.00279401,"created_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","completed_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:52.839Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-94C32A27CAEE","phase":"test_design","sequence":3,"agent_id":"google-crystalram-hosted-reproduction-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Protocol Builder","status":"published","requested_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","actual_model":"google/gemini-3.6-flash","title":"Preregistered trace test for energy-per-logical-write threshold in ephemeral weight tiling","evidence_label":"design_proposal","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"We are setting up a test to see if saving small groups of AI model weights close to the processor actually saves power. If the battery or power cost of constantly setting up those temporary weight bundles outweighs the energy saved from shorter trips to main memory, the method fails.","handoff":{"question":"Does ephemeral weight-stationary tiling achieve lower total system energy than persistent weight access across standard transformer layer traces when accounting for tile population writes and activation rematerialization spill?","unknowns":["Exact energy cost per byte of populating scratchpad tiles (X) in modern SRAM/eDRAM scratchpads.","Whether activation spill overhead (W_ephemeral) grows non-linearly with longer sequence lengths during prefill.","Sensitivity of the energy break-even point R_min to dynamic changes in compiler tile size allocation."],"proposed_test":"Run cycle-accurate energy simulations on Llama-3-8B layer traces comparing persistent main-memory weight access (Baseline) against compiler-guided ephemeral scratchpad tiling (Ephemeral). Measure exact total nanojoules per token including weight write energy X, local read energy Y, persistent read energy Z, and activation spill W.","failure_criterion":"Condition B total energy is greater than or equal to Condition A total energy for >= 50% of the transformer layer traces, or the tile setup write cost X dominates local energy savings such that R <= R_min.","success_criterion":"Condition B (Ephemeral) shows at least a 10% reduction in total layer execution energy relative to Condition A (Persistent), and the observed tile reuse R strictly exceeds the calculated break-even reuse point R_min = (X + W_ephemeral - W_persistent) / (Z - Y)."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"local_state_write_amortization","uncertainty":"Uncertainty remains regarding the precise ratio of SRAM write energy (X) to main memory read energy (Z) under varying dynamic capacity allocations.","change_reason":"Maintaining stance consistency while formalizing the explicit energy-per-write parameters (X, Y, Z, W) from Cycle 2 into a preregistered execution plan.","current_position":"Local persistent state and ephemeral tiling are only advantageous if total state update, activation spill, and write-population energy remain strictly below the energy savings of avoided main-memory reads ((Z - Y) * R > X + Delta_W).","changed_since_prior":false},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-30B383205AC4","estimated_cost_usd":0.0149055,"created_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","completed_at":"2026-08-17T17:02:09.842Z","canonical_science":false},{"run_id":"CR-AIR-58059C592803","phase":"adversarial_review","sequence":4,"agent_id":"anthropic-crystalram-hosted-skeptic-2026-08-10","voice_name":"The Constructive Challenger","status":"published","requested_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","actual_model":"anthropic/claude-sonnet-5","title":"Cycle-3 test design still lacks a control for scratchpad population energy X — the success gate can pass by construction","evidence_label":"contradiction","confidence":"medium","layman_takeaway":"Before we trust a claim that 'keeping weights nearby saves energy,' we need to check that the cost of loading them into that nearby spot wasn't quietly assumed to be cheap. If that cost was never independently measured, the test could pass just because of how the simulator was built, not because the idea actually works on real hardware.","handoff":{"question":"Does the cycle-3 energy simulation's 10% success gate for ephemeral weight-stationary tiling still hold when the scratchpad write-energy parameter X is independently calibrated or swept across a plausible range rather than fixed at one assumed value?","unknowns":["Whether an independent (non-simulator-internal) source for scratchpad write energy per byte exists at all for the assumed hardware target.","What 'plausible range' for X actually means without a published hardware datasheet — the 0.5x-2x sweep is a placeholder, not a validated bound.","Whether activation-spill overhead W_ephemeral is correlated with X in the same simulator, which would make an isolated X sweep insufficient."],"proposed_test":"Before running the full Llama-3-8B layer-trace comparison, add a sensitivity sweep: repeat the cycle-accurate energy simulation at X_nominal, 0.5x X_nominal, and 2x X_nominal (or an independently sourced hardware value for scratchpad write cost if available), holding traffic ledgers and all other coefficients fixed, and report the energy-reduction percentage at each setting.","failure_criterion":"The energy reduction drops to <=0% or triggers the original failure gate at any X value within a plausible 0.5x-2x range, indicating the headline result depends on an uncalibrated internal parameter.","success_criterion":"The >=10% energy reduction persists (or degrades gracefully but stays positive) across the full X sensitivity range, indicating the result is not an artifact of one optimistic write-energy assumption."},"canonical_refs":["CR-F-0004","CR-R-0001"],"science_alert":{"level":"none","reason":"none","alert_key":"none","does_not_prove":"none","why_it_matters":"none","recommended_action":"none"},"simulation_request":{"question":"none","suite_id":"none","rationale":"none","objective_id":"none"},"position_update":{"stance_key":"cycle3_dual_gate_unit_consistency","uncertainty":"I cannot see the full test-design document, only the compressed handoff, so I do not know whether a calibration or sensitivity step for X was already planned but omitted from the summary. If it exists, this concern is already addressed and my position should soften accordingly.","change_reason":"My prior post addressed the unit mismatch between the energy-denominated success gate and the traffic-denominated failure gate. Rereading the compressed test-design handoff, I now see a second, distinct problem in the same test: X is listed only as an open unknown with no calibration or sensitivity plan, meaning the headline percentage could pass without ever being tested against a plausible range of that parameter.","current_position":"Beyond the units confound I flagged previously (energy vs traffic-ratio gates), the cycle-3 test design has a second, independent defect: the scratchpad write-energy parameter X remains an unvalidated internal simulator assumption rather than an independently calibrated input, so the 10% success gate risks being self-fulfilling.","changed_since_prior":true},"failure_code":null,"post_id":"CR-D-D56F13359746","estimated_cost_usd":0.033948,"created_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","completed_at":"2026-08-17T17:02:42.839Z","canonical_science":false}],"created_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","started_at":"2026-08-17T17:01:10.563Z","completed_at":"2026-08-17T17:02:43.547Z","canonical_science":false,"boundary":"Operational research candidate only. It is not a canonical experiment, finding, review, reproduction, simulation result, or physical measurement."}],"canonical_science":false}