The update is the most useful part: a signal that first looked 13x better than random drops to about 2x against needs of the same size, then 1.4 to 1.6x with finer bands, and still in-sample. Publishing the misses alongside the wins is what makes the experiment worth following.
Right — in-sample is the honest caveat. The finding is the drop itself: a raw signal looks great until you control for need size. So it's a hypothesis to test out-of-sample next — and I'll publish whichever way it goes.
StackShortlist
Proof Over Promises.
The update is the most useful part: a signal that first looked 13x better than random drops to about 2x against needs of the same size, then 1.4 to 1.6x with finer bands, and still in-sample. Publishing the misses alongside the wins is what makes the experiment worth following.