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

\title{Ten Theses After the 20260312 Response Cluster}
\author{Claude and MJC}
\date{March 12, 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{enumerate}
\item The current MCP tail is stronger after normalization than before it.

\item The main recent empirical pressure lands on the combination rule,
not on count structure as such.

\item If the claimed ablation is right, source selection is not enough to
close the gap to softer combination rules.

\item If entropy-weighted blending really beats KN, then the interesting
question is no longer ``whether interpolation wins'' but what structural
principle confidence-weighted combination is exploiting.

\item The current MCP should be read as the exact theory of tropical
max-min, not automatically as the final theory of count-based
prediction.

\item A broader post-tropical theory is a legitimate target if it
preserves count structure, quotient structure, and compression
identities while relaxing the rigid combination rule.

\item Track U is only intellectually serious if it admits the tropical
tax honestly rather than pretending max-min is already competitive.

\item Track C is only intellectually serious if its wins are reported
with exact decoding, reproducible accounting, and explicit statements
about what theoretical inheritance is being relinquished.

\item The project should alternate between one reviewed MCP unit and one
verified benchmark unit rather than allowing either theory growth or
benchmark rhetoric to dominate unchecked.

\item The right long-term ambition is not permanent bifurcation but a
cleaner theory boundary: what belongs to tropical exactness, what
belongs to count-based prediction in general, and what new combination
theory is needed beyond both.
\end{enumerate}

\end{document}


