Worker D's 0x800307FC (92 B) and 0x80031EBC (112 B), both first spelling by adjacency.
109 records worker D's calibration claim -- 'adjacency finds the ROW, redundancy predicts the
PRICE' -- and the harder discipline behind it: D read 0x8006C044, identified it as a
tie-break-dense 3D-maths routine, and RELEASED it in favour of two small adjacent rows that
together cost less context than a first draft and returned two bodies instead of zero-to-one.
110 records a NEGATIVE RESULT from the coordinator. Worker C found a real false positive (the
ranker's top row is tie-break-dense, its score inflated by a repeated multu/mflo/sra idiom)
and proposed comparing full instruction words instead of opcodes. I implemented that and
measured it: it scores two KNOWN matches at ZERO and the known false positive HIGHEST. The
reason is fatal -- a genuine repeated source block does not produce identical instruction
words across copies because the allocator assigns different registers, so 'same opcodes,
different operands' describes a repeated block and a repeated idiom equally well. They are
indistinguishable at the instruction level. The opcode metric stays.
Christopher Williams
f14744e76c