Controlled: 80 fixed SC01/077 fns (nins 8-15), identical blind-draft Workflow,
only session effort varied. Arm A (Ultracode/xHigh) 13/80, Arm B (Max) 14/80;
A∩B=12. 13-vs-14 = noise -> per-agent depth does NOT change blind-draft harvest
yield; the 'pass 1 Max did better' observation was difficulty-confounded.
DECISION: prefer Ultracode for breadth harvests (same yield + orchestration),
Max for deep synthesis. Banked Arm B's 14 -> ov_SC01_077 REAL 704 (byte-identical).
(scriptPath re-invoke didn't forward args -> Arm B overwrote Arm A's drafts dir;
Arm A was already gated/recorded, so the comparison stands; 1 A-only fn unbanked.)
finding -> docs/effort-map.md (Evidence section)
- matching-cookbook.md §12: the parallel-draft + deterministic byte-gate + match_one
iteration loop that took the resident 1.4%->71.7% in one session. The pipeline (Workflow
draft -> harvest_verify.py gate -> redraft passes -> match_one.py iterate), retry-wave
resilience, the two TU gotchas (inline-typedef strip; standalone-MATCH-but-build-FAIL =
extern-type conflict -> unify types), and the idioms the swarm surfaced (void-dispatcher-
is-s32, struct-copy prologue, *10->2x+8x, masked-andi-range, callee-return-type-forces-cast).
- effort-map.md: standing instruction to PROACTIVELY prompt Drew to enable /effort ultracode
on breadth-shaped stretches during a Max session (with the Phase-12 evidence), keeping the
deep single-thread tasks at Max. Memories: ultracode-harvest-pattern, effort-prompt-
ultracode-on-breadth.
Drew T