debate mode, and the source that wasnt there
biggest thing this session is a second mode. round mode’s ladder tops out at saying something in your own words. debate wants something else out of you, holding a position for four speeches while an opponent tries to take it off you. own route, rather than bolting a sixth round on the end

the rating is arithmetic
the judge hands back a winner, a margin and ten dimension scores. the elo change gets worked out from those in integer maths the model never sees. ask a model to update an elo directly and you get a number that looks like arithmetic, and you cant catch it going wrong cuz every value it gives you is plausible

two tabs and they never mix. open debate is judged on whether the argument holds up. tournament prep gets judged against a tournament bar, where a dropped argument is conceded and 60 means mediocre rather than good for a beginner. format is required and never defaulted, a Public Forum ballot handed to somebody practising Lincoln-Douglas is worse than no ballot cuz theyll act on it

tritoflex
somebody ran a topic-only session on Tritoflex, a spray-on rubber roofing compound, and got told over and over that it was torch-applied. he caught it cuz he installs the stuff. anybody studying something new wouldnt have

ask the model cold abt an obscure term and it comes back with a protein, an alpha helix, signal transduction, implicated in cancer. none of it true, none of it reading as invented, and it never once says it doesnt know

the worst bit wasnt a missing disclaimer. on a topic-only round 4 the marking screen printed “Contradicts the source” under a heading reading “The notes”, in a session where the student pasted nothing and the server blanks every citation on the way out anyway. so somebody who wrote a true sentence got told they contradicted evidence that had never existed. it says “the model disagrees” now

the header badge went from “AI-generated” to “AI, unchecked”. they typed the topic in themselves so they already know who wrote it. what they have no way to know is that nothing checked it. “AI” stays in the label cuz it outlives the moment, screenshots get shared and come back a week later

runs leave something behind
they used to die with the tab. honest enough abt the plumbing. but retrieval practice does its work thru spacing, and meeting a concept once, failing to explain it and never seeing it again is the half that only feels like studying

the session already worked out the thing worth keeping, a map of which ideas you can recognise but cant say. computed it, showed it once, threw it away on the walk to the results. one standing per concept sticks around now and the front door leads with whats still unsaid

the tests that tested nothing
my first two boundary assertions both passed against the exact bugs they were written for. one compared trimmed pieces, and trimming erases the evidence, so it cant tell a mid-word cut from a clean one. the other ran on a sample that had collapsed to a single chunk, so there was no join left in it to get wrong

only found out bcuz i reverted the fix to watch them fail and they sat there green

status
the green “strong” band is verified, which closes the open item from the last log. seen in a browser by somebody who knew the answers, rather than by a driver answering option 1 every time

readme
the privacy section had gone from cautious to false. “nothing is stored beyond the current session” stopped being true the moment runs started leaving a record behind. thats twice a claim in there has drifted while the product moved under it, so anything that stores something now drags a readme check into the same commit

still no accounts. standings are per device and clearing site data wipes them