P16 half-batch synchronization every two launches
Halving launch size and synchronizing every two launches preserves ~20 ms observability with less overhead than synchronizing every launch.
Diagnostic work, exact algebra and local capabilities are not treated as end-to-end mining advantage.
What was tested?
Halving launch size and synchronizing every two launches preserves ~20 ms observability with less overhead than synchronizing every launch.
Why the test is meaningful
Performance evidence is interpretable only if the exactness audit covers the complete registered nonce domain and includes its known target hit.
H_audit=67,108,864×32=2^31known B32 nonce=3,842,969,478>2^31−1valid inference requires H_audit=2^32How it was tested
Compare P16 no-sync, sync-every-launch and sync-every-two across 24 benchmarks, batch 67,108,864, 192 launches per measurement and one copy per 16.
What happened
The candidate appeared 1.000108× versus sync-one (CI95 0.999717–1.000499), retained 0.999761 of no-sync and observed at 0.020276 s. But no binary found B32 because the audit retained only 32 repetitions after halving the batch.
Exactness and statistical controls
Benchmarks, factors, spills and observed comparisons passed, but the registered known hit lay outside the 2^31-word audit range. The campaign is technically invalid, not a mechanism rejection.
What the result means
No performance conclusion is allowed. The exact design and gates must be repeated with 64 audit repetitions covering 2^32 words.
Limitations
- The exactness audit covered only half the nonce domain.
- Apparently favorable timing is scientifically unusable.
- No promotion or negative mechanism claim follows.
Evidence trail
Repeat unchanged with 67,108,864×64 audit work and require all binaries to recover nonce 3,842,969,478 before reading timing.
Canonical variants
CANONICAL-EXP-160PREREGISTERED-CAMPAIGNSEALED-AUDITSource: internally audited canonical reports. Local filesystem structure, private headers and operational identifiers are excluded from publication.