Consequences decisions: D2 notes the proving agent's drafted sentences on its branch

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/plans/consequences-decisions.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Sibling of `ledger-decisions.md`. Each is a consequence of a measured number tha
 | # | Row | What needs deciding | Recommendation | Why |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | D1 | C1 | The fee switch lands at H = 210,000 about 19:50Z on 6 October, and the 0.3.10 node's export does not carry the switch, so every app prover's shards are refused or vetoed from H. Move H, or race 0.3.11 onto every prover first | If 0.3.11 (with the proving-v1 fork, whose export carries `daaScore` and `feesV1ActivationDaa`) is not on every prover by 16:00Z on 6 October, republish the override with H = tip + 86,400 rounded to the next thousand, re-read the digest on a scratch node, every node in one sweep (the fee-switch plan's own rule for a later H). The coordinator holds the devnet delegation; this note is so the morning does not find proving dark | A dark proving pool on the devnet costs nothing on chain (the escrow keeps it) but every coverage, latency and fleet number measured after H is void |
-| D2 | C3 | The litepaper says "12 GB or more proves full shards"; the only measurement puts the prover alone at 13.8 GB on a 32 GB card | The sweep and the S_p curve are in (proving agent, 5 October late): no knob moves the floor; 12 GB proves nothing on SP1 6.8.1, 16 GB proves only empty shards alone, 24 GB proves the adopted 30,000-pgas shard (20.4 GB alone, about 22 GB beside the miner), 32 GB proves everything. Change the sentence to "24 GB or more proves; 32 GB proves and mines on one card" and evidence row 16 to tested-by-the-team on those rows; the 12 GB figure returns only if a smaller GPU server or a smaller shard measures under 12 GB | A public number that the first 3060 owner disproves is the FUD the ledger exists to prevent |
+| D2 | C3 | The litepaper says "12 GB or more proves full shards"; the only measurement puts the prover alone at 13.8 GB on a 32 GB card | The sweep and the S_p curve are in (proving agent, 5 October late): no knob moves the floor; 12 GB proves nothing on SP1 6.8.1, 16 GB proves only empty shards alone, 24 GB proves the adopted 30,000-pgas shard (20.4 GB alone, about 22 GB beside the miner), 32 GB proves everything. Change the sentence to "24 GB or more proves; 32 GB proves and mines on one card" and evidence row 16 to tested-by-the-team on those rows; the 12 GB figure returns only if a smaller GPU server or a smaller shard measures under 12 GB. The proving agent has drafted the two replacement sentences on its branch (app 440fd59, litepaper and evidence rows 15 and 16); nothing is pushed, so the project lead approves or rewrites the draft rather than starting from the measurement | A public number that the first 3060 owner disproves is the FUD the ledger exists to prevent |
 | D3 | C8, C13 | The homepage says "Any 4 GB card" and the litepaper says a 4 GB card mines for about four years and an 8 GB card for more than a decade; the tile says "4B hard cap" while the rule mints about 3.96 billion | Replace with the lifetime table's numbers once the sub-agent lands it: "4 GB cards mine at launch; 8 GB for about six years; 12 GB for about fourteen; the dataset grows half a gigabyte a year" and "cap 4 billion, about 3.96 billion ever minted" | The schedule is public and the arithmetic is one line; a reader will do it |
 | D4 | C9, C8 | Index mapping at gate 1, now with the lifetime table (`docs/analysis/card-lifetime-2026-10-05.md`): (a) multiply-shift, continuous growth: 4 GB cards out at 1.0 to 1.5 years, 8 GB at 6.3 to 7.5, 12 GB at 12 to 13.5, Apple 8 GB at 2.6 to 3.4; (b) power-of-two steps at years 4, 12, 28, 60: 4 GB to year 4, 8 GB to year 12, 12 GB to year 28 (the cache freed after the build, decided by the coordinator at 22:50), each tier ending on a step day | (b), with the step calendar published on the miners page from day one (the years 4, 12, 28 and 60 named beside the tiers), and the 1 GiB vectors kept. Revised from (a) at 23:0x: the table shows (b) is the only mapping under which the litepaper's "4 GB about four years, 8 GB more than a decade" holds, and a step day known twelve years ahead is a schedule, not an event; the coordinator recommends the same | Under (a) both public sentences are wrong today by 2.5 to 5 years; under (b) they hold and the cliffs are dated |
 | D5 | C10 | The site's "under 2x" chip claim: the scratch layer leaves the on-die-cache recompute chip at 2.4x at every share; the mixer multiplier x2 brings it to 1.2x at twice the CPU verify cost (about 0.9 ms per warp, half the pool members per core) | Carry the mixer x2 into class v3 on the devnet tonight (the coordinator's gates apply, the verify time per warp measured) and keep the claim; if the coordinator judges it outside the delegation, qualify the claim in level 3 until the project lead says | The claim is the project's first public sentence on chips; it is either true by a measured lever or it is marked |