`posterior_of`, `posterior_of_at` and `expected_variance_reduction`
existed twice: once on `Joint`, and once on `History` as one-shot
wrappers whose whole body was `self.joint()?.<same>(..)`.
The wrappers re-factorised on every call — their own docs said so,
warning the reader to take a `Joint` instead — and they were what
smuggled the scored-only precondition onto the flat surface. A user
following the quickstart builds a ranked history, sees `posterior_of` in
the method list, and it never works. `h.joint()?.posterior_of(..)` is
one call longer and tells the truth: you need a joint, and a joint needs
a scored history.
That leaves three tiers instead of a flat surface with a hidden
precondition: `History` fits and reads, `predict_*` forecasts, `Joint`
answers exact joint questions.
`predict_margin` was itself calling `self.posterior_of`; it goes through
`self.joint()?` directly now.
The `Joint` methods' docs referred back to the wrappers for their real
content ("Identical to `History::posterior_of`, without re-paying the
factorisation"), so they now carry it: what a linear functional means,
which appearance each competitor is read at, and why
`expected_variance_reduction` belongs on the handle.
`tests/joint_handle.rs` had three tests comparing the wrapper against
the handle. That comparison is gone, but the property behind it is not —
they now compare a *reused* joint against a *fresh* one per question,
which is the actual correctness claim behind caching the factorisation
(#51), without the wrapper in the middle.
Closes#78.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
`gamma` enters only as `gamma * gamma`, so the sign was squared away:
measured against the old public-field form, `ConstantDrift(-0.0833)`
produced results bit identical to `ConstantDrift(0.0833)`. The sign was
neither rejected nor honoured — it vanished.
It could not be checked while the field was a public tuple position,
because there was nothing to intercept. Validating inside
`variance_for_elapsed` would have been worse: it runs in the sweep, so a
construction-time mistake would panic mid-inference, and `Gaussian::from_ms`
is a worked example of why that is the wrong place — rejecting NaN there
turned the NonFiniteResult reporting path into a crash.
So `ConstantDrift::new` is the only way in and it checks, with `gamma()`
to read the value back. 129 call sites rewritten across src, tests,
benches, examples and the README. The dated plan and spec documents under
docs/superpowers are left alone: they record what was built at the time,
and rewriting them would falsify that.
tests/constructor_validation.rs is the more valuable half. This defect
class was closed three times in one session and reopened twice, because
each fix validated the layer it had just touched and inferred the rest —
`HistoryBuilder`, then `Game`'s own entry points, then the constructors
beneath both. A per-site fix cannot notice the site nobody thought of, so
that file enumerates every public entry point taking a magnitude and
asserts each refuses negative and non-finite values.
It found an eleventh defect on its first run: `HistoryBuilder::score_sigma`
accepted infinity, because `inf > 0.0` is true and the assert only tested
positivity. Fixed, and its own `should_panic` message updated to match.
`Gaussian::from_ms` is deliberately exempt from the non-finite half, for
the reason above: a broken fit produces a NaN sigma legitimately and
`converge` must be allowed to report it.
The convergence-level drift-variance check stays and is now tested through
a custom `Drift` implementation, since `ConstantDrift` can no longer reach
it. That check is the only thing standing between a third-party `Drift`
and a NaN fit.
BREAKING CHANGE: `ConstantDrift`'s field is private. Replace
`ConstantDrift(x)` with `ConstantDrift::new(x)`, and `drift().0` with
`drift().gamma()`. `HistoryBuilder::score_sigma` now rejects infinity.
Closes#65
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
Investigating #47 needed a reproduction of the reporter's structure: a
joint player/layout model where every observation measures a sum of
nodes against a reference, so the data pins differences and leaves the
overall level to the prior.
The result corrects #46's framing as well as answering #47. Combining
marginals is wrong in opposite directions depending on the combination,
and the unsafe direction is not the one either issue assumed:
combination exact adding marginals
p0 + h0 (a round) 4.0850 0.8041 0.20x OVERconfident
p0 - p1 (rank two) 0.8741 0.8592 0.98x about right
h0 - h1 0.7119 0.7057 0.99x about right
#46 assumed every published figure was too wide and that this was "at
least the safe direction". That holds for differences. For sums it
reverses: adding marginals is five times too narrow, which publishes a
claim the data does not support.
For a single node the exact marginal is ~5x wider than message passing
reports, because the level it shares with its partners is pinned only by
the prior. That is the honest posterior for a weakly identified
parameter, not a defect — and it is why #47's node "should be
publishable" intuition and its posterior sigma disagree.
Refs #46, #47
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5