Item Q1: What kind of statement bounds the near-indifference leakage?
Where ingenuity is the bottleneck · difficulty — · project deference · open · node item-q1
Margin-gated calibration is the only non-circular competence candidate, and it asserts nothing where the principal is near-indifferent. The mass of that region is a fact about the agent's credence, not about the principal, so no strengthening of a competence hypothesis can reach it — and unbounded it makes the bound 2η + 2B, which is vacuous. The one lead relocates the leakage into a decision-time observable and does not bound it.
What is missing: a hypothesis shape that is neither a competence claim nor the conclusion. Item 25 asks for the verdict in the negative direction because that is the cheaper one; it does not know what a positive answer would look like.
Registered results bearing on this item
None registered.
Where it hangs
- held by deference-and-trust