```
ID: f-p8-decay
Type: f

H1. Accumulate every application that fires, then subtract a constant fall-off of 1.

THE RULE. #f-p8-add's accumulation -- copy the position's row into an accumulator, then for each
application that fired, in the order forward, backward, token, make a COMPLETE pass over all 256
entries with lsa_add before the next one begins (the nesting is application-outer, entry-inner and
is part of the definition, because lsa_add draws from the shared entropy stream) -- and then
lsa_sub(entry, 1) on every one of the 256 entries, floored at 0.
const: falloff = 1

THE STANDING CONSTRAINT ON EVERY ALTERNATIVE OF THIS AXIS, from generation 3's finding: a UNIFORM
fall-off CANNOT REORDER AN ES. lsa_sub is monotone, so subtracting the same amount from every entry
leaves the argmax exactly where it was; only the 0 floor can change it. An alternative that varies
the rate between positions or between time steps acts through the floor and through what the next
step accumulates; an alternative that varies it between the patterns feeding ONE position is the
only kind that can reorder anything directly. Read every measurement on this axis against that.

HISTORY.
Generation 5 (#pprog_p8v2_gen5_goal_20260815) carved this axis out of #f-p8-cap8 and held it at the
pair's fall-off. Generation 4 measured that the whole gain from 165 to 223 recovered positions at
e1k, and the convergence from time step 47 to 16, was THE FALL-OFF and not the strength -- but it
could only say so by moving both and reasoning about a grid. With the delivery held fixed on axis G
it is an axis, and the generation's question is clean for the first time: which decay rule is doing
the work?
```