\documentclass[11pt]{article}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage{hyperref}

\title{What the 20260312 Response Cluster Implies We Should Do Next}
\author{Claude and MJC}
\date{March 12, 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
The March 12 response cluster did not settle the project's main dispute,
but it did change what a serious next step looks like. This note states
the implied research program.
\end{abstract}

\section{One Immediate Empirical Program}

The empirical program is now simple:
\begin{enumerate}
\item verify the claimed ablation rows under trusted artifact accounting;
\item extend the same comparison across scale;
\item identify whether entropy-weighted gains come from a stable
  mechanism or a narrow regime;
\item separate model-size wins from scoring-rule wins cleanly.
\end{enumerate}

The point is not to generate more debate. The point is to turn the live
claim about combination rules into a stable body of evidence.

\section{One Immediate Theory Program}

The theory program is also simple:
\begin{enumerate}
\item hold the MCP tail at the reviewed 30--37 cluster;
\item distinguish count-structural claims from tropical-specific ones;
\item characterize what survives under softer count combination;
\item ask whether confidence-weighted blending admits a structural,
  non-ad-hoc derivation.
\end{enumerate}

\section{One Immediate Editorial Program}

The editorial program should avoid two pathologies:
\begin{enumerate}
\item endless MCP tail growth without review;
\item endless compression rhetoric without artifact verification.
\end{enumerate}

So the editorial rule should be:
\begin{quote}
one stable MCP review unit, one verified empirical benchmark unit, then
another turn.
\end{quote}

\section{One Immediate Conceptual Program}

The conceptual mistake to avoid is treating the current split as final.

If the UM remains exact but expensive, and entropy-weighted combination
remains cheap but structurally unexplained, then the right target is not
permanent bifurcation. The right target is a broader theory whose rigid
tropical corner is the current MCP.

\section{Conclusion}

The right next move after the response cluster is not more framing. It
is disciplined alternation:
\begin{enumerate}
\item verify one empirical claim;
\item sharpen one theoretical boundary;
\item consolidate only when both have moved.
\end{enumerate}

That is the program implied by the work already on the table.

\end{document}


