EXP-023VALIDATED
Advantage Decomposition / SHA-256

Hard carry resets and blocking certificates

Frequent P-zero carry jumps can be explained by exact single-bit resets or small certificates that prove a propagation chain cannot span the entire interval.

Claim statusNO END-TO-END MINING ADVANTAGE DEMONSTRATED

Diagnostic work, exact algebra and local capabilities are not treated as end-to-end mining advantage.

Date2026-08-14
HardwareClassical exact algebraic verifier
Run scopeEight canonical variants
ReproducibilityFor every record, evaluate both incoming carry values, locate hard resets, minimize zero-propagation certificates and compare the predicted suffix with direct addition; then repeat on an independent cohort.
01 / Question & hypothesis

What was tested?

Frequent P-zero carry jumps can be explained by exact single-bit resets or small certificates that prove a propagation chain cannot span the entire interval.

02 / Scientific basis

Why the test is meaningful

At bit i, equal fixed operand bits kill dependence on the incoming carry: 0+0 forces the next carry to 0 and 1+1 forces it to 1. More generally, a set of non-propagating positions is a certificate that a carry cannot traverse an interval unchanged.

x_i=y_i=0 ⇒ c_{i+1}=0x_i=y_i=1 ⇒ c_{i+1}=1P_I = ∏_{i∈I}(x_i ⊕ y_i); any certified zero factor implies P_I=0
Hard carry resets and blocking certificatesVisual reading of the published metrics and gates for EXP-023; it summarizes the registered result, not a mining advantage.EXP-023 / HARD CARRY RESETS AND BLOCKING CERTIFICATESHARD RESETS 5–13428 / 1,361HARD RESETS 16–22874 / 1,361DOWNSTREAM CANDIDATES0
FIGURE / RESULT READINGVisual reading of the published metrics and gates for EXP-023; it summarizes the registered result, not a mining advantage.
03 / Method

How it was tested

Build a bit-level reset atlas, identify the latest hard reset within each interval, measure the exact suffix dependency remaining after that point and minimize propagation-blocking certificates. Validate the complete mechanism on a fresh 300-record cohort per interval and search connected downstream contexts separately.

04 / Observed result

What happened

Hard resets 5–13428 / 1,361
Hard resets 16–22874 / 1,361
Downstream candidates0

For interval 5–13, 428 of 1,361 records had a hard reset; for 16–22 the count was 874. Fresh hard-reset rates were 32.33% and 61.67%. Minimal certificates were usually small: in interval 16–22, 874 of 1,140 P-zero cases required one certified position. No downstream or borrow-reset candidate was found.

05 / Validation

Exactness and statistical controls

All suffix restart dependencies and certificates were checked against exact ripple-carry evaluation. Fresh cohorts preserved the qualitative rates. The experiment reports conditional frequencies, not multiplied probabilities, and keeps the zero downstream-candidate result in the record.

06 / Interpretation

What the result means

The long-jump phenomenon has a concrete causal mechanism rather than a mere correlation. This sharpens later detector design, but the certificate is useful operationally only if it can be obtained and consumed cheaper than baseline work.

Limitations

  • Rates are empirical even though each individual certificate is exact.
  • Certificates describe selected intervals, not the complete compression function.
  • No downstream selector or runtime saving was demonstrated.
07 / Reproduction

Evidence trail

For every record, evaluate both incoming carry values, locate hard resets, minimize zero-propagation certificates and compare the predicted suffix with direct addition; then repeat on an independent cohort.

Canonical variants

SUBENGINE-V23ASUBENGINE-V23BSUBENGINE-V23CSUBENGINE-V23DSUBENGINE-V23ESUBENGINE-V23FSUBENGINE-V23GSUBENGINE-V23H

Source: internally audited canonical reports. Local filesystem structure, private headers and operational identifiers are excluded from publication.