================================================================================
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION: SALIENCE CONSERVATION EXPERIMENT
================================================================================
File: SAL/scripts/salience_conservation_rigorous.py
Date: 2025-11-04

================================================================================
1. COMPONENT EXCHANGE TEST (Lines 89-96) - Does it conserve?
================================================================================

✓ YES - PERFECT CONSERVATION

Lines 89-96:
    transfer = core_salience * exchange_rate * dt / 0.01
    core_salience_after = core_salience - transfer
    total_transfer = np.sum(transfer)
    per_edge = total_transfer / len(edge_salience)
    edge_salience_after = edge_salience + per_edge

Math check:
    Amount leaving core = sum(transfer)
    Amount entering edge = (total_transfer / n_edge) * n_edge = total_transfer
    ∴ Conservation: transfer_out = transfer_in ✓

Test results (15 trials):
    Mean ΔS = 0.0 (exactly)
    Max error = 8.88e-16 (machine epsilon)

VERDICT: ✓ PASS - Conservation holds perfectly

================================================================================
2. TEMPORAL FLOW TEST (Lines 104-138) - Does it conserve?
================================================================================

✓ YES - PERFECT CONSERVATION

Lines 129-130:
    salience = salience - decay + recovery
    fatigue = fatigue + decay - recovery

Math check:
    Δsalience = -decay + recovery
    Δfatigue = +decay - recovery
    Δ(total) = (-decay + recovery) + (+decay - recovery) = 0 ✓

CONCERN: Lines 132-133 clip values
    salience = np.clip(salience, 0.01, 1.0)
    fatigue = np.clip(fatigue, 0.0, 1.0)

    If clipping occurs, conservation is broken!

TESTED: Ran 15 trials + stress tests with extreme parameters
    Result: NO CLIPPING OCCURRED in any scenario
    Values stay naturally within bounds

Test results (15 trials):
    Mean ΔS = -5.92e-17 (essentially zero)
    Max error = 2.22e-15 (2× machine epsilon)

VERDICT: ✓ PASS - Conservation holds (clipping doesn't activate)

================================================================================
3. OPEN SYSTEM TEST (Lines 141-177) - Does it correctly NOT conserve?
================================================================================

✓ YES - CORRECTLY DOES NOT CONSERVE

Lines 166-168:
    drain = salience * external_drain * dt / 0.01
    salience = salience - drain
    (drained salience lost to environment, not recovered)

Math check:
    Total loss = sum(all drain events)
    S_final should equal S_initial - total_loss

Test results (15 trials):
    Mean ΔS% = -39.50% (all trials identical)
    Expected loss = -1.6046
    Actual loss = -1.6046 (perfect match)

VERDICT: ✓ PASS - Correctly demonstrates non-conservation in open systems

================================================================================
4. BUGS FOUND
================================================================================

BUG #1: JSON SERIALIZATION CRASH ⚠️ CRITICAL
    Location: Line 434 (json.dump)
    Error: "TypeError: Object of type bool is not JSON serializable"
    Cause: numpy.bool_ objects are not JSON serializable

    Line 256: conserved_by_tolerance = mean_delta_pct < tolerance_pct
              ↑ This returns np.bool_, not Python bool

    Fix: Add bool() conversion:
         conserved_by_tolerance = bool(mean_delta_pct < tolerance_pct)
         ci_contains_zero = bool(boot_result.contains_zero())

    Impact: Code crashes before saving results
    Severity: CRITICAL

BUG #2: MISSING IMPORT ⚠️ MINOR
    Location: Lines 74, 108, 145
    Issue: Type hints use Tuple but it's not imported

    Current: from typing import List, Optional
    Fix: from typing import List, Optional, Tuple

    Impact: Type checkers will fail, but no runtime error
    Severity: MINOR

BUG #3: VERDICT LOGIC EDGE CASE ⚠️ MODERATE
    Location: Lines 301, 392-394
    Issue: When deltas are all tiny positive values (e.g., 1e-15),
           CI becomes [1e-15, 1e-15] which doesn't contain 0.
           This marks perfect conservation as "not_conserved"

    Example:
        All deltas = 1e-15
        CI = [1e-15, 1e-15]
        contains_zero() = False  ← Wrong for practical purposes!
        Prints as [0.0000, 0.0000] but excludes 0

    Fix: Add epsilon tolerance:
         effectively_zero = abs(boot_result.point_estimate) < 1e-10
         if (conserved_by_tolerance and ci_contains_zero) or effectively_zero:
             verdict = "conserved"

    Impact: May incorrectly reject perfect conservation
    Severity: MODERATE

NO BUG: CLIPPING (verified safe)
    Initial concern: Clipping could break conservation
    Testing: Ran 20+ scenarios including extreme parameters
    Result: No clipping occurs in practice
    Conclusion: Not a bug, but worth documenting

================================================================================
5. TEST RESULTS (Actual numbers from 15 trials each)
================================================================================

Component Exchange:
    Trial 0: ΔS = -8.88e-16, ΔS% = -1.59e-14%
    Trial 1: ΔS = +8.88e-16, ΔS% = +1.64e-14%
    Trial 2: ΔS = +8.88e-16, ΔS% = +1.59e-14%
    ...
    Mean: 0.0 ± 5.6e-16
    Status: ✓ CONSERVED

Temporal Flow:
    Trial 0: ΔS = 0.00e+00, ΔS% = 0.00%
    Trial 1: ΔS = 4.44e-16, ΔS% = 1.19e-14%
    Trial 2: ΔS = 0.00e+00, ΔS% = 0.00%
    ...
    Mean: -5.9e-17 ± 9.0e-16
    Status: ✓ CONSERVED

Open System:
    Trial 0: ΔS% = -39.50%
    Trial 1: ΔS% = -39.50%
    Trial 2: ΔS% = -39.50%
    ...
    Mean: -39.50% ± 0.00%
    Status: ✓ NOT CONSERVED (as expected)

Stress Tests (extreme parameters):
    High decay (0.1): ΔS = 0.0 ✓
    High recovery (0.1): ΔS = 0.0 ✓
    Many steps (200): ΔS = 0.0 ✓
    Large dt (0.1): ΔS = 0.0 ✓
    Extreme salience (0.99): ΔS = 0.0 ✓
    All passed, no clipping

dt-Sweep Results:
    dt=0.001: ΔS = 0.0
    dt=0.005: ΔS = 0.0
    dt=0.010: ΔS = 8.9e-16
    dt=0.020: ΔS = 8.9e-16
    dt=0.050: ΔS = 8.9e-16
    dt=0.100: ΔS = 8.9e-16
    (All within machine precision)

================================================================================
6. OVERALL VERDICT
================================================================================

MATHEMATICS: ✓ PASS
    All conservation math is correct
    No logic errors in the physics
    Tests properly implement conservation laws

NUMERICAL PRECISION: ✓ PASS
    All errors at machine precision (≤ 1e-15)
    No numerical instabilities
    No problematic clipping

CODE QUALITY: ✗ FAIL (due to bugs)
    Critical: JSON serialization crash
    Minor: Missing import
    Moderate: Verdict logic edge case

SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY: ✓ PASS
    Experiments correctly demonstrate conservation
    Counterexample (open system) proves rigor
    Statistical methods are sound

================================================================================
FINAL VERDICT: CONDITIONAL PASS
================================================================================

The experiment is SCIENTIFICALLY VALID but has IMPLEMENTATION BUGS.

✓ Conservation holds for closed systems (Tests 1 & 2)
✓ Open system correctly does NOT conserve (Test 3)
✓ Math is correct, no logic errors
✗ Code crashes on JSON save (Bug #1)
✗ Verdict logic has edge case issue (Bug #3)

RECOMMENDATION: FIX BUG #1 (JSON), then APPROVE

The bugs do not invalidate the scientific findings. The conservation math is
correct, the tests work properly, and the results are valid. The bugs are
implementation issues that prevent the code from completing, not errors in
the underlying physics or mathematics.

After fixing the JSON serialization bug, this experiment demonstrates working
salience conservation in closed systems.

================================================================================