# Learned Open-Loop Retained-Geometry Program — Phase-1 Pilot

**Decision:** `do_not_advance_confirmation`  
**Scope:** Dimensionless Cosserat-rod architecture experiment; not steel, field transduction, softening, or hardware.

## Frozen screens

| Screen | Result |
|---|---:|
| Access | fail |
| Process | fail |
| qProgT diagnostic | fail |
| Spatial mechanism | PASS |
| Access robustness | N/A |
| Process robustness | N/A |
| Numerical | PASS |

The learned program reached **5/8** nominal commands versus **5/8** for the conventional composite. Matched-coverage qProgT ratio was **1.240**.

| Command | Learned program | Conventional composite | Direct optimizer | Mean energy | Curvature error |
|---|---:|---|---:|---:|---:|
| arc_y_positive | 16/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 16/16 | 16/16 | 2.253 | 0.176 |
| arc_y_negative | 16/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 16/16 | 16/16 | 2.253 | 0.176 |
| s_bend_y_positive | 12/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 13/16 | 12/16 | 2.518 | 0.251 |
| s_bend_y_negative | 12/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 13/16 | 12/16 | 2.518 | 0.251 |
| helix_left | 16/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 16/16 | 16/16 | 2.689 | 0.178 |
| helix_right | 16/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 16/16 | 16/16 | 2.689 | 0.178 |
| rotating_bend | 16/16 | optimized_feedback_parallel: 16/16 | 16/16 | 2.253 | 0.191 |
| spatial_wave | 11/16 | optimized_feedback_moving_zone: 13/16 | 11/16 | 4.043 | 0.244 |

## Mechanism and closure

- Learned exact outcomes: `115` / 128.
- Time-shuffled: `111`.
- Spatially permuted: `0`.
- Uniform-dose replacement: `0`.
- Dose-rebalanced reconstruction: `4`.
- Direct open-loop optimizer reachable commands: `5/8`; exact outcomes: `115/128`.
- Access screen passed in `0/7` plant cases; process screen passed in `1/7`.
- Numerical comparisons / label disagreements / failures: `112` / `0` / `0`.

The direct optimizer is an incumbent-closure test, not part of the conventional physical-baseline composite. If it matches the learned program, the supported possibility belongs to distributed open-loop schedule architecture rather than a unique feedback-compilation method.

## Interpretation

The promoted lead generalizes at the individual-run level, but it does not
produce a comparative advantage under the frozen gates. The five uniformly
reachable commands were the two arcs, two helices, and rotating bend. Both
S-bends scored 12/16 and `spatial_wave` scored 11/16, while their strongest
controls scored 13/16. The qProgT ratio of 1.2399 is reported as a
near-threshold diagnostic, not rounded into a pass.

The mechanism result is nevertheless clear inside the model. Shuffling intact
blocks retained 111/128 outcomes, but spatial permutation and uniform-dose
replacement each fell to zero, and rebuilding a schedule with the same
per-zone dwell counts fell to 4/128. The operative program therefore includes
zone identity and block coactivation/dose structure, not merely total dose or
global temporal ordering.

Because ordinary direct open-loop optimization exactly matched the learned
candidate at 5/8 reachable commands and 115/128 exact outcomes, the result is
closed as an architecture mechanism rather than evidence of a unique compiler
or CCT advantage. Neither reserved 32-seed confirmation set was opened.
