docs: state what the joint's cost actually scales in

A consumer measured an 8x difference in solve time between two fits over
the same events, the same slices and the same ~2,000 nodes:

  career fit   (gamma = 0)      787 ms
  drifting fit (gamma = 0.15)  6214 ms

Entirely the collapse rule. A competitor with zero drift contributes one
variable however long the history, so a drift-free fit's joint is smaller
than a drifting one's by roughly the slice count — and to factorise, by
its cube. Choosing a drift configuration is therefore also choosing a
query cost, and nothing said so.

Documented on `Joint`, on `Joint::variables` and on `posterior_of`, with
the measurement. `variables()` is named as the number that decides
affordability, since it can be read before committing to a batch.

Also states the thing the consumer proposed as a future optimisation,
because it is already true: an absence is not an appearance, so a
competitor seen in the first and last of a hundred slices contributes two
variables rather than a hundred. The matrix is already as small as the
model allows on that axis.

tests/joint_handle.rs pins the mechanism — ten slices, two competitors,
twenty variables drifting against two at `gamma = 0` — so a change to the
collapse rule cannot quietly remove the property the docs now promise.

Refs #51

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ

tests/joint_handle.rs

@@ -141,6 +141,53 @@ fn variables_counts_appearances_not_competitors() {
     assert_eq!(joint.variables(), 12);
 }
 
+/// How much the collapse is worth, which is the part a caller has to plan
+/// around: a drift-free competitor contributes **one** variable however long
+/// the history, so the same events at `gamma = 0` and `gamma > 0` differ by
+/// roughly the slice count in problem size — and by its cube in solve time.
+///
+/// Reported by a consumer as an 8x difference in solve time on a ~2,000-node,
+/// 76-slice model (787 ms career against 6,214 ms drifting). This pins the
+/// mechanism behind that so a change to the collapse rule cannot quietly
+/// remove it.
+#[test]
+fn drift_free_competitors_shrink_the_joint_by_the_slice_count() {
+    fn variables(gamma: f64) -> usize {
+        let mut h = History::builder()
+            .mu(0.0)
+            .sigma(6.0)
+            .beta(1.0)
+            .score_sigma(2.0)
+            .drift(ConstantDrift(gamma))
+            .convergence(ConvergenceOptions {
+                max_iter: 20_000,
+                epsilon: 1e-13,
+                alpha: 1.0,
+            })
+            .build();
+        h.add_events(
+            (1..=10)
+                .map(|t| duel("a", "b", t, 5.0, 2.0))
+                .collect::<Vec<_>>(),
+        )
+        .unwrap();
+        let _ = h.converge().unwrap();
+        h.joint().unwrap().variables()
+    }
+
+    let drifting = variables(0.5);
+    let career = variables(0.0);
+
+    // Two competitors over ten slices: twenty appearances, or two variables.
+    assert_eq!(drifting, 20);
+    assert_eq!(career, 2);
+    assert_eq!(
+        drifting / career,
+        10,
+        "collapse should track the slice count"
+    );
+}
+
 /// With `drift = 0` consecutive appearances are the same latent variable, so
 /// the joint is smaller than the appearance count.
 #[test]