Net score
+11
Sum of -3..+3 criteria.
At a glance
Strongest control
[C2] Matched-prose no-expand control
Game `@expand` study
Treatment
[T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment
Focused expansion evidence where source concepts are already concrete.
Semantic trace
workers -> belts/machines -> crate pushing -> hazards -> readable levels
Propagation path inspected.
Variant metrics
Columns are grouped into authoring size, final output size, and semantic-information proxies.
| Variant | Role | Source | Variables | Output | Leverage | Fact units | Density | Yield |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [C1] Compact no-expand control [C1] Compact no-expand control | Compact source that names the puzzle inspirations without expansion. | 90 | 0 | 1,171 | 13.01x | 70 | 59.8 | 777.8 |
| [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control | Manual prose expansion without using `@expand`. | 182 | 0 | 1,314 | 7.22x | 89.25 | 67.9 | 490.4 |
| [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment | Uses `@expand mode: intention` to unpack concept labels into mechanics. | 191 | 0 | 3,334 | 17.46x | 244.75 | 73.4 | 1,281.4 |
Metric definitions and scoring legendOpen for exact meanings.
Source words
Words in the local study source for a variant; this is the local authoring burden.
Variable words
Words in a variant's explicit input payload, when a template or refinement uses one.
Output words
Words in the saved compiled final artifact.
Leverage
Output words divided by local source words; larger means more final artifact per local word, not quality by itself.
Fact units
Novelty-weighted semantic fact units extracted from the output by deterministic rules.
Density
Discounted fact units per 1,000 output words; higher means a more information-dense output.
Yield
Discounted fact units per 1,000 local source words; higher means more semantic material per local authoring word.
Treatment-control comparison
| Metric | [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control | [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source-only leverage | 7.22 | 17.46 | win |
| Discounted fact units | 89.25 | 244.75 | win |
| Information density | 67.9 | 73.4 | win |
| Information yield | 490.4 | 1,281.4 | win |
Contrastive gain/loss scores
Scores compare [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment against [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control on the -3..+3 scale.
Primary scores are blind* using hybrid-derived-metrics-and-masked-review: anonymous absolute 1..7 scores were frozen before reveal, then converted to the -3..+3 treatment-control scale. Hybrid blind* scoring uses derived metrics for mechanical criteria and masked source/output review for criteria that require actual reading. The masked review is less blind because domain content, source syntax, or style can leak, but this is necessary to avoid replacing readability and integration judgments with weak length/density proxies.
| Criterion | Blind* score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Authoring leverage | +3 | derived-evidence method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 1 for the strongest control. |
| Information yield | +3 | derived-evidence method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 1 for the strongest control. |
| Grounded expressiveness | +2 | masked-source-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 7 for [T] versus 3 for the strongest control. |
| Input readability | -1 | masked-source review method. Blind* absolute scores: 5 for [T] versus 6 for the strongest control. |
| Output readability | +1 | masked-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 6 for [T] versus 5 for the strongest control. |
| Constraint integration | +2 | masked-source-output review method. Blind* absolute scores: 6 for [T] versus 3 for the strongest control. |
| Reusable abstraction quality | +1 | masked-source review method. Blind* absolute scores: 6 for [T] versus 4 for the strongest control. |
| Total | +11 | Net contrastive gain/loss. |
Metric definitions and scoring legendOpen for exact meanings.
Contrastive score
A -3..+3 judgment comparing [T] against the strongest listed control for each criterion.
Total score
The sum of the seven contrastive criterion scores for one study.
Score color
Green means [T] is better, red means worse, amber means similar; intensity follows magnitude.
Gains and failures
Gains
- [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment wins source-only leverage: 17.46 versus 7.22 for [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control.
- [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment wins discounted fact units: 244.75 versus 89.25 for [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control.
- [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment wins information density: 73.4 versus 67.9 for [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control.
- [T] Expanded WeaveMark treatment wins information yield: 1,281.4 versus 490.4 for [C2] Matched-prose no-expand control.
- `@expand` keeps the source modular and still frames a coherent factory-crowd puzzle.
- The treatment wins the matched-prose control on the deterministic leverage, fact-unit, density, and yield proxies.
- It captures integration framing across autonomous workers, belts, machines, crates, hazards, and levels.
Failures and caveats
- The source concepts are concrete enough that manual prose can unpack them very effectively.
- The matched-prose control remains an important fairness baseline even when the treatment wins the proxy metrics.
- This is saved-output semantic evidence; behavioral proof still requires downstream implementation/use.
Conclusion
A positive `@expand` result: useful for clarity and framing, and currently ahead of matched prose on deterministic proxy metrics.