IFN-driven resistance gates virus release
Increment-3 mechanism — with-IFN vs no-IFN control (seed 17, 60 updates)
Increment 3virus @ step 20 (−53%)
819 vs 1751
resist ρ plateau (not →1)
~0.57
infected @ step 40 (−23%)
53 vs 69
Virus load — the primary, robust signal (~halved every step)
Infected count — weaker early, widens to ~23% by step 40
Per-cell resistance ρ plateaus fast (~0.55), it does NOT ramp to 1
Mechanism validated, reproduction PENDING. Same 0.3 mm / 900-cell sheet, seed 17, as Increment 2 — but each infected cell's virus secretion is throttled by (1−ρ), with ρ from that cell's locally-sampled IFN. The primary, robust effect is on virus load (~half the control from the earliest sampled step: 819 vs 1751 at step 20). The effect on infected COUNT is real but weak early (~4% at step 20) and only becomes sizeable (~23%) by step 40. ρ jumps to ~0.53 after one update and plateaus in a 0.55–0.57 band — a steady brake, not a hard block. This is NOT a claim any Sego 2022 Fig 3B/5/7 target is met (deferred to Increment 9); note also the source's IFN-self-secretion feedback is omitted here, so ρ runs somewhat HIGH vs a fully source-faithful version.