:orphan:

.. _hell-mm-b16-aa-finalizing:

===========================================================================================================
AA b16 --- Finalizing the RiskyMAD paper (list of record, lives beside the drafts it plans)
===========================================================================================================

| **Created:** 2026m08d04_13h48
| **Scope:** everything that must happen before b16 (RiskyMAD) is published. **Paper-scoped only.**
| **Status:** OPEN --- this is the permanent finalizing list for b16, not a session snapshot.
| **Placement rule (LLoL, 2026m08d04):** an AA file belongs **next to the thing it plans**.
  This one sits at ``hell/mm/b/16/`` --- one level above the version folders, so it survives
  ``oov3`` -> ``oov4`` --- because what it plans is *the b16 paper*, not one draft of it.
  Only **larger-than-this-paper** tasks go to the central registry at ``/_post/aa/``.

.. note::

   **Why an AA file may live in HELL.** The append-only rule in ``CLAUDE.md`` is scoped to
   **LLogs**, under ``source/matheology/hell/ll/``. It has never applied to HELL as a whole ---
   ``hell/mm/`` holds actively rewritten drafts (this paper is being rewritten right now), and
   ``hell/aa/`` has existed since 2026m06d03. So no rule needed relaxing for this file to exist
   here; what needed correcting was the claim that "HELL is append-only", which over-generalised
   a rule that names ``hell/ll/`` specifically.

   **And AA files do carry audit value.** A task written down and then not done is evidence ---
   of what was attempted, what was foreseen, and what was forgotten. That is often more revealing
   than a task never recorded. (Recorded because the opposite was claimed in session
   2026m08d04 and was wrong.)


Where b16 lives --- so nobody has to search HELL
==================================================

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 34 66

   * - What
     - Where
   * - **Current draft (being edited)**
     - ``hell/mm/b/16/oov3/b16-riskymad-waiting-time_oov3_2026m07d18.rst``
   * - Superseded drafts
     - ``hell/mm/b/16/`` --- ``mmv1/``, ``mmv2/``, ``mmv3/``, ``oov2/``
   * - **Published floor page**
     - ``source/study/matheo/b16/`` (``index.rst`` + ``b16-form-riskymad-mmv5.rst``)
   * - Changelogs
     - ``study/matheo/b16/b16-changelog-mmv5-to-oov2.rst``, ``...-oov2-to-oov3.rst``
   * - **Session llogs (the reasoning)**
     - ``hell/ll/study/b/16/`` --- 12 files; most recent:
       ``b16-oov3-execution-verification-llog_2026m07d25_11h39.rst``,
       ``b16-oov3-ring-restructure-plan-llog_2026m07d18_11h00.rst``,
       ``b16-oov1-master-plan_2026m07d15_19h30.rst``
   * - Paper-local bibliography
     - ``source/_bib/b16-nuclear-risk.bib`` (24 entries); cross-cutting refs in
       ``source/_bib/references.bib``
   * - Figures
     - ``source/_file/pdf/hell/mm/b/16/fig/``
   * - Related POST AA entries
     - :doc:`POST AA b17 </_post/aa/b/17/b17-b16-riskymad-revision-tasks>` (the three
       non-paper leftovers of the b16 revision session),
       :doc:`POST AA b18 </_post/aa/b/18/b18-build-warning-gating-and-link-guards>`
       (build/link guards)
   * - Cross-cutting citation work
     - :doc:`POST AA b19 </_post/aa/b/19/b19-matheo-citation-infrastructure>` --- the b16
       BibTeX row below depends on its decisions 1 and 3


Task list
============

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 5 5 44 46

   * - k
     - s
     - Task
     - Notes
   * - k6
     - s9
     - **§1's Arkhipov account is DOUBLED and both halves are live.**
     - Opened 2026m09d04, from reading the built PDF. Section 1 opens with LLoL's own draft paragraph
       (*"During the Cuban Missile Crisis on Oct 27 ..."*, committed ``ba83501``), then a transition
       rule, then the older **P1** paragraph telling the same story again (*"Pinned in the Sargasso Sea
       ..."*). **Both render.** A referee therefore meets the same account twice on page one, in two
       different voices, before anything else. This is a work-in-progress state that is invisible in
       the source (the two are separated by what looks like an editing marker) and unmissable in the
       PDF. **The single largest thing standing between the current draft and a referee copy.** LLoL's
       to close --- the three costed alternatives (P1 / P2 / P3) and the two *epieikeia* options are
       still in comment blocks immediately around the live text.
   * - k5
     - s9
     - **Typos and unfinished phrasing in the live §1 draft paragraph.**
     - Opened 2026m09d04. In LLoL's own draft text, which prints: **"US Navy destoyers"** |rarr|
       *destroyers*; and *"had not gentle kind reasonably spoken up"*, which reads as unfinished rather
       than as a phrasing choice. **Not corrected** --- it is LLoL's own uncommitted prose in a section
       he is actively rewriting, and the trifecta usage may be deliberate. Listed so it is not lost if
       the paragraph survives the rewrite.
   * - k4
     - s8
     - **Re-home the** *epieikeia* **argument, or decide to let it go.**
     - Opened 2026m08d07 by the Section-1 compression. When the B-59 account moved to SIA-X7,
       the paragraph "**No rule could have supplied that**" went with it. That paragraph is
       LLoL's own conceptual contribution of 2026m08d06, and it is the **only place in the
       ring** that argues judgement-when-rules-run-out is a *function that can be staffed,
       trained and paid for* --- which is precisely what **Sections 6 and 11** then ask the
       reader to fund. As it stands the ask has lost its stated warrant in the ring.
       **Recommended:** one sentence added where the ask is made (Section 6 or 11), not a
       restoration in Section 1 --- which would undo the compression. Full paragraph
       preserved in SIA-X7. LLoL's call on wording and placement.
   * - k5
     - s9
     - **[DONE 2026m08d04] Fix the stale section cross-references in the restored
       Declarations.**
     - The *Competing interests* paragraph was ported verbatim from OOv2 on 2026m08d04 and
       still points at **OOv2 numbering that OOv3 does not have**: "Section 2.5"
       (simulations), "Section 4" (ResearchCity), "Section 2.6" (parameters pushed against
       the conclusion), "Section 4.0a" (reverse exposure), "Section 2.0a" (headline figure).
       OOv3 has flat sections 1--11 with **no** such subsections. Ported deliberately
       unchanged --- re-deriving numbers during a port is how content gets silently invented.
       Each needs mapping to its OOv3 home (or to an SIA). **In the paper going to review.**
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **Two open items left in the Section-1 Arkhipov story (scan now read).**
     - Opened 2026m08d06, largely closed the same day (llog
       ``hell/ll/study/b/16/b16-section1-arkhipov-story-llog_2026m08d06_14h44.rst``). Seven
       sources researched and added to ``source/_bib/b16-nuclear-risk.bib`` under a cluster
       header carrying the standing warning; ``check-bib`` clean. **The Orlov scan has been
       read** and every figure the paper uses is confirmed verbatim. It forced two corrections,
       both applied: no water rationing appears in the document (claim CUT), and **the
       three-officer vote and Arkhipov's refusal are NOT in the source** --- Orlov says only
       that Savitsky reined himself in after consulting Arkhipov and Maslennikov. The paper now
       states that gap explicitly and uses the quieter sourced version; do not let the dramatic
       version back in. **The Guardian article has also been read** (LLoL supplied the full text
       the same day), forcing a third correction: **it does not contain the "gone down with your
       ship" remark**, which is the only thing it had been cited for. That beat was CUT; no
       source for it has been found and the Soviet debriefing records are closed. ``Wilson2012``
       is now cited for what it genuinely is --- a dated, widely read *instance of the
       accretion*, asserting the three-officer rule and the lone refusal, neither traceable to
       Orlov. **One item remains:** LLoL's account attributes the radio silence to **US
       broad-band jamming; no source found**, and the Orlov scan gives only an inability to
       reach the General Staff. Do not restore it without a source.
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **Review the whole BibTeX arrangement for the Matheo series.**
     - LLoL's call, reserved 2026m08d04. The 2026m08d03--04 work restored the
       ``.. bibliography::`` block to OOv3 (with the non-capturing
       ``:filter: docname in docnames``) and moved ``Kemp2025`` to ``references.bib`` under
       the promotion rule --- but the wider question of how the series should cite itself is
       **not** settled. Related: :doc:`POST AA b19 </_post/aa/b/19/b19-matheo-citation-infrastructure>` items 1 and 3 (seven pages
       still use the capturing ``:filter: cited and True``; the inline display style for
       ``:cite:`Matheo-bNN``` is still undecided).
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **Order, review, and consolidate the SIA numbering.**
     - LLoL 2026m08d04. Headings are currently sequential (SIA-1..SIA-14, then
       SIA-X1..SIA-X7) so nothing is broken, but the **two-series split** (numeric vs X)
       needs a deliberate decision: what earns an X, whether the X-series should fold into
       the main sequence, and whether the in-text cross-references still point where they
       should. Editorial, LLoL's judgement.
       **Added 2026m08d07:** SIA-X7 (the B-59 account, moved out of Section 1) now sits
       after SIA-X6, i.e. a narrative appendix after the draft-status bookkeeping one. That
       is the only placement that keeps the X-series in numeric order today. **In the
       end-pass it wants to sit next to SIA-6** (crisis-rate calibration), which is where
       the Cuban excursion is counted and where a reader asks "what actually happened?" ---
       and the draft-status appendix wants to be last.
   * - k3
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d04] Pre-submission checks** (from the 2026m07d17 session, item #17).
     - All four **HELD** against their sources on 2026m08d04 --- details in the
       "Done" section below. **One residual, k3 s3:** the Rome/AI words are the *Rome
       Declaration's*, quoted via the Bulletin article (``DiazMaurin2026``). Citing the
       reporting article is defensible, but the primary source --- *Humanity at the
       Threshold: A Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear Weapons* --- would
       be stronger. **Decide whether to add it as a second bib entry.**
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **Finalize publication via supersede-don't-overwrite (mmv6 pilot).**
     - From the 2026m07d17 session. Needs LLoL's sign-off on the DD b15 §2 amendment
       (per-paper rolling marker). How-to in ``AHA/matheo-naming-and-versioning.md`` ->
       "Updating a floored paper". After LLoL finishes reading.
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Decide the empire-collapse paragraph's citation.**
     - §1 was reworded 2026m08d04 so the paragraph is explicitly **non-load-bearing** ("nothing
       in the forecast below depends on it"), which lowers the risk of citing loosely.
       On 2026m08d05 LLoL challenged the 2026m08d04 CITE-SCOPE WARNING and **was right**:
       elite capture running to brittleness *is* endogenous self-destruction, so the warning
       was one axis too wide. Narrowed: the prohibition applies to the attributed
       **mechanism** (epistemic vs structural), not to the self-destruction framing.
       Both proposals from
       :ref:`the Kemp placement llog <hell-ll-study-b16-kemp-citation-placement>` were
       **applied on LLoL's instruction**: ``Kemp2025`` now supports the *closing* endogenous
       claim of the empire paragraph (§1, ~lines 231--247) instead of the middle clause, and
       one sentence was added to the burden-of-proof paragraph (~line 258) so that "collapse
       can be invisible until after it has run" answers the *"surely we would notice"*
       rebuttal from outside the paper.
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Do not quote Kemp --- paraphrase only, until a copy is read.**
     - Everything known about *Goliath's Curse* comes from secondary sources; **no copy has
       been read**. The bib ``abstract`` field is publisher marketing copy quoted verbatim,
       **not Kemp's prose** --- it is a non-rendered archive field (checked 2026m08d05
       against built HTML: ``abstract`` does not appear in rendered bibliographies).
       Enforced in the applied §1 text: paraphrase only, no quotation marks, no page
       numbers. **Now written into the bib** ``extranote`` as a standing restriction on
       future edits, which is where it belongs --- it binds anyone citing this source, not
       just b16. Lift only after someone reads a copy.
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Amend the** ``Kemp2025`` **bib** ``extranote``\ **.**
     - Rewritten: the CITE-SCOPE section now **supersedes** the 2026m08d04 warning and
       separates the two axes (framing = safe, mechanism = still off-limits); the
       do-not-quote restriction is recorded; what b16 actually cites Kemp for is recorded so
       future editors need not re-derive it. **The nuclear-war claim was confirmed, not
       removed** --- the final third argues we inhabit a single Global Goliath threatened by
       nuclear war, climate breakdown, AI and pandemics (two independent 2025 reviews). The
       "324 cases" figure was confirmed against Wikipedia. The "Added 2026m08d03" date was
       **wrong** and is corrected to 2026m08d04 against git.
   * - k4
     - s2
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Cite Kemp for b16's own subject, not just the analogy.**
     - Opened by the 2026m08d05 source check: Kemp's final third treats **nuclear war** as a
       threat to the present global order. **LLoL approved, with the constraint "only in a
       general sense --- I don't have the book and can't check the precise quote."** Applied
       to **SIA-10 Related work** as a short paragraph placed after the Baum findings and
       before the Hellman block, so the section still closes on "this forecast is not an
       outlier". It states the convergence, then the limit: that literature names the threat
       without estimating a rate, so it corroborates the *subject* and none of the numbers,
       and it leaves open the same how-often gap Baum names as undone and SIA-9 finds in the
       insurance record. No quotation, no page numbers.
   * - k2
     - s1
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Add the missing Sphinx-extension entries to**
       ``scripts/rstcheck.cfg``\ **.**
     - Bigger than first assessed. Roles: ``cite``. Directives: ``dropdown``,
       ``bibliography``, ``graphviz``. **Repo-wide effect: 1907 findings |rarr| 615**, i.e.
       **1292 of them --- roughly two-thirds of the entire lint output --- were false
       positives from four missing config entries.** The b16 OOv3 paper went from 40
       findings (39 ``cite`` + 1 ``bibliography``) to **zero**. Earlier counts of "36" and
       "37" in this file and in session replies were low; the measured figure is 40.
       Trade-off accepted and stated: rstcheck no longer inspects ``bibliography``
       directive bodies, and it never could resolve citation keys --- ``make check-bib``
       is what catches a bad key, not rstcheck.
   * - k3
     - s2
     - **Work down the 615 real rstcheck findings now that the noise is gone.**
     - Top classes: 134 short title underlines, 85 inconsistent title levels, 72 unexpected
       indentations, 62 block quotes ending without a blank line. Mostly in llogs --- see
       the POST AA b21 row on the 154 CRITICAL llog errors, which is the same debt seen
       from the Sphinx side. **Not the same tool:** rstcheck findings and Sphinx warnings
       are separate lists, and clearing one does not clear the other.
   * - k3
     - s2
     - **Decide the internal-link half of the §1** ``TODO REF``\ **.**
     - The marker asks for two things; only the Kemp citation is answered. Natural target
       for "why societies self-destruct" is ``source/jubileesystem/index.rst`` (lines
       86--93: debt accumulation, incumbent capture, persisting arsenals). That file has
       **no RST label**, so it would be a ``:doc:`` link. Open question for LLoL: should a
       paper under expert review link its introduction to the project's own advocacy page?
   * - k3
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d04] Fix the stale display text in the restored Provenance
       paragraph.**
     - Reads "What Changed Between MMv5 and **OOv1**" while targeting
       ``b16-changelog-mmv5-to-oov2``. Ported verbatim from OOv2; the label drifted there.
   * - k6
     - s9
     - **[RAISED from k3/s2 on 2026m09d04] Resolve the two remaining ``TODO`` markers in §1 ---
       they RENDER AS VISIBLE BODY TEXT.**
     - **Raised because they were checked in the built PDF rather than assumed.** Both appear in the
       text layer of
       ``b16-riskymad-waiting-time_oov3_2026m07d18_BalospeCom_2026m09d04_17h02m14.pdf`` --- they are
       **not** RST comments and a referee reads them, inside the first ~500 words, before reaching any
       arithmetic. Current source lines: ``(TODO REF)`` at **474**, ``(TODO LINK Jacobsen, 2024)`` at
       **534** (the older ~219/~278 line numbers below predate the 2026m09d04 additions). Nothing else
       in the paper leaks a marker: the ``--CONTINUE HERE---`` markers and the EPIEIKEIA / P1--P3
       alternatives blocks are comments and do not print --- checked, not assumed.
       Nuclear-winter mechanism (``TODO REF``) and Jacobsen 2024 (``TODO LINK``). **Toby Ord was resolved 2026m08d05** --- ``Ord2020`` added to
       ``references.bib`` and cited at ~line 314 for the wider catalogue of existential risks
       the single-switch abstraction excludes; the stray ``)`` and missing full stop on that
       line were fixed with it. The societies-self-destruct marker was **narrowed** --- its
       citation half is resolved by ``Kemp2025``; only the internal-link half survives,
       tracked in its own row above.
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Complete the §1 close (the two ``--CONTINUE HERE---`` markers).**
     - The tail was **doubled**, not unfinished. Deleted on LLoL's instruction: *"The life
       being priced"* (duplicated the better *Actuarial mapping* paragraph, which also states
       the under-estimate) and *"The historical record"* (duplicated the earlier
       Cuban/Able-Archer/Petrov/Arkhipov passage, which numbers the two sides (0)/(1) per the
       ordering convention). Both were also indented 12 spaces and would have rendered as
       nested block quotes. Fixed: the severed sentence in the *Why this paper exists*
       admonition (it ended ``**SIA-X1**;`` then three blank lines, orphaning "nothing in the
       argument depends on it") and "More details ... **is** described". Final order: the
       Parkinson paragraph, the die, the question, the limit, the Nobel corroboration ending
       on ``#AuditTheMath``, the admonition, then the roadmap.
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Add the closing roadmap paragraph to §1.**
     - Two paragraphs: one clause per section 2--11, then a general statement that depth lives
       in the appendices. **Constraint honoured:** the OOv3 restructure llog requires the Mary
       Douglas ring to stay *latent* --- no ``A/B/C/C'/B'/A'`` headers, no forced
       mirror-pairings --- so the roadmap names only the centre (Section 5, the decision, as
       the paper's own metadata already does) and groups the rest by function. Per LLoL: no
       precise SIA survey, since the numbering is still to be consolidated. Placed **after**
       ``#AuditTheMath`` and ending on the hand-off to the appendices, so §1 still closes on
       the checking task rather than on a table of contents.
   * - k3
     - s3
     - **[DONE 2026m08d05] Resolve the parked "Decision to look" comment.**
     - Woven back in as *"The difficulty is not only personal"*, with LLoL's
       ``((Parkinson, bike-shedding...))`` placeholder resolved to **Parkinson's law of
       triviality** (``Parkinson1957``, now in ``references.bib``). The reactor-versus-bicycle-shed
       illustration is unusually apt for this paper's subject; the text says plainly that the
       committee is fictional and the essay a satire, so it reads as an image and not as
       evidence. The verbatim original is **kept** in the comment with a dated header saying
       it has been integrated --- so the wording stays checkable and nobody integrates it
       twice.
   * - k3
     - s2
     - **LLoL to check two claims the new roadmap makes.**
     - "Every parameter on the table" (Section 3) and "the record needed to reproduce every
       figure" (SIA-12) are both **checkable promises** a reviewer can test. They were written
       from the section openings, not from an audit of SIA-12. Also for LLoL's eye: the
       one-clause description of **Section 5**, whose voice is explicitly LLoL's to set.
   * - k3
     - s2
     - **Two ``--CONTINUE HERE---`` markers remain** in the OOv3 draft.
     - Lines ~290 and ~293 at 2026m08d03. LLoL was editing §1 when the session broke.
   * - k4
     - s2
     - **§2 restructure** (2026m07d17 item #14) --- LLoL's structural thinking.
     - Deferred; no action until LLoL decides.
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **Pour the b16 floor and send the outreach** (2026m07d17 item #18).
     - Baum + 10 drafts prepared, **none sent**. After LLoL's review. This is the step that
       makes the revised paper public.
   * - k5
     - s3
     - **Sweep the UNSENT outreach drafts in ``balospe-launch`` for the 1-in-40 /
       car-crash formulation.**
     - **Propose-not-edit --- LLoL's public voice.** Ten drafts carry it and **none has
       been sent** (confirmed 2026m07d16, even Schneier):
       ``email/bruce-schneier_2026m06d23.txt`` (5 hits),
       ``Gideon300dev/letters/first-touches-3_2026m06d23.txt`` (10),
       ``.../rovelli-carlo_2026m06d25.txt`` (8), ``.../robock-alan_2026m06d24.txt`` (2),
       ``.../copp-tara_2026m06d25.txt``,
       ``email/move-to-launch/{former-colleagues-science,-COLD,coming-out-to-colleagues,forwardable-science-chain}``.

       **GOOD NEWS FIRST: the drafts are NOT wrong, and they vindicate LLoL.** Every one
       uses **"worse than a 1-in-40 chance per year"** --- a **floor**, not a constant ---
       and **none** claims scenario-independence. The floor **survives exactly**: the base
       case is 1 in 34.5, which *is* worse than 1 in 40. The uniform-1-in-40 claim LLoL
       worried he had made exists **only in the Claude-drafted paper prose**, not in his
       outreach. He owes no correction there.

       **TWO things to fix, both upgrades rather than repairs.** (1) They can now say
       something **stronger**: 1 in 34, computed exactly from the first-passage law, rather
       than sampled from 40 runs. (2) **The real defect:** the sentence *"likelier to die in
       an accidental nuclear winter than in a car crash --- worse than a 1-in-40 chance per
       year"* puts the two clauses in apposition, so the second reads as the basis for the
       first. **It is not.** 1-in-40 is :math:`P(\text{onset})`; the car-crash comparison
       requires :math:`P(\text{onset}) \times q`. That is precisely the conflation b16 §2.6
       warns of ("would overstate the comparison by a factor of :math:`1/q`"). **Alan Robock
       will notice within seconds --- it is his field** (his and Xia's 2022 calorie-loss
       estimates are what b16 now cites for :math:`q`). Fix by naming the :math:`q` step, or
       by dropping the em-dash clause and citing the 58x comparison directly.

       **Also stale in those drafts:** "median 19 years" |rarr| 21.1 exact (a refinement,
       not an error); the US road-death baseline |rarr| global (80x |rarr| 58x). The newer
       ``email/seth-baum_2026m07d16.txt`` is already written on the corrected numbers.
   * - k4
     - s2
     - **Sweep the public site pages once the paper's numbers settle.**
     - ``crisis/wagers.rst`` (5+ hits on "worse than 1 in 40"), ``crisis/science.rst``,
       ``crisis/see-the-problem.rst``, ``buy-in/campaign/intro-gofundme.rst``, and the b16
       intro companion. The base case *supports* "worse than 1 in 40"; what needs softening
       is the "regardless of scenario" framing, since the optimistic corner is ~1 in 113.
       Deferred by LLoL: "let's fix the paper first."
   * - k4
     - s3
     - **Read Lewis et al. (2014) and Tertrais (2017) properly.**
     - PDFs are in the FF review-prep folder; bib entries pending. The worst-case table
       currently rests on **Claude's inference** about what a Lewis-style reading would
       include, drawn from Baum's characterisation rather than from Lewis et al.'s own text.
       **Until read, the table must not claim their authority.** Tertrais's scope note (he
       excludes accidents, unauthorized launches, and terrorism) is load-bearing for the
       prior-art section and should be checked against his own words, not the abstract.
   * - k3
     - s3
     - **Ask A. W. McCoy which four near-misses he counted.**
     - McCoy (UW--Madison historian) supplied the *count* "4 in 40 years" by personal
       communication --- **not a list**. LLoL's instruction (2026m07d15): keep McCoy out of
       the paper for now and do not attribute a composition to him. If his four differ from
       the paper's reconstruction from Baum, that difference is itself publishable evidence
       on how fluid the A/B boundary is among people who know the history.
   * - k3
     - s1
     - **Watch the c104 re-pour trigger.**
     - :ref:`bug c104 <hell-bugc104-index>` predicts a series-wide ``mmv6`` re-pour becomes
       cheaper than explaining the decoupling once **three or more** papers stand at OOv1+
       while the floor still reads ``mmv5``. Count after this revision: **two** (b19 PPv1,
       b16 OOv1). Record the count when it moves; if it passes three and a re-pour still
       does not pay, c104 is wrong and that must be recorded.
   * - k2
     - s2
     - **Migrate deprecated tokens carried by the b16 floor.**
     - The floor still carries ``[Matheo-2]``-style references and old ``h*``-era tokens;
       the paper flags this itself. Executed as part of the wider site sweep (see "Larger
       than b16" below), but listed here because it is b16 output that a reader sees.
   * - k4
     - s2
     - **Expression restructure** --- fold audience in, facet (2026m07d17 item #10).
     - De-risked plan recorded in that session + ``AHA/matheo-naming-and-versioning.md``.
       Recommendation from that session: **after** b16 publishes, not before.
   * - k3
     - s2
     - **Registry-doc scope + the subfolder question** (2026m07d17 item #15, ref #18).
     - LLoL's call.
   * - k3
     - s1
     - **FOOTER-FORM vs content-VVN collision** (2026m07d17 item #16).
     - Also tracked as :doc:`AA b15 </_post/aa/b/15/b15-vvn-marker-mistake-prevention>`.
   * - k6
     - s9
     - **[DONE 2026m09d04] Set the stake band** :math:`E` **in Table 10.**
     - **LLoL's ruling: $90,000 / $900,000 / $9,000,000, keeping the hundredfold spread.** Applied
       throughout --- Table 10, Table 11's ceiling column, SIA-15's worked example and cross-check
       comparison, the Abstract, both Broader Significance blocks and Section 11.

       **What this bought.** The ceiling now rounds **down** from the DOT guidance value of \$9.1 M
       rather than up from it, so **no rounding anywhere in Table 10 runs in this paper's favour** ---
       which was the one exception flagged in the adversarial pass. The round ceilings survive the
       change: exact thresholds are 1 in 326 / 3,263 / 32,628, stated as **no more than 1 in 300 /
       3,000 / 30,000**; the hundredfold column is 30.6 / 3.1 / 0.31 per cent, stated as **no more than
       35 / 3.5 / 0.35**.

       **LLoL's rationale for the hundredfold spread is now IN the paper, and it is stronger than the
       one the draft had.** The draft justified the width as memorability. LLoL's reason is defensive:
       what a life is valued at differs enormously between countries, so any single figure invites the
       objection that it is somebody else's --- the band is set wide *on purpose* to span that
       international spread, and the conclusion holds at every point in it. Added, together with the
       observation that a single per-person figure is meaningful here at all only because the hazard is
       global and non-excludable: **everyone is in the same boat**, which the arithmetic assumes and
       nothing more.

       **On LLoL's question of moving** :math:`K` **from \$8 to \$9 for a pleasant ratio ---
       recommended AGAINST, and it is a close call worth recording.** The attraction is real: with
       :math:`K = 9` and :math:`E = 9 \times 10^{n}` the nines cancel exactly, giving
       :math:`p^{*} = 1/(r \times 10^{n})` --- thresholds of 1 in 290 / 2,900 / 29,000, read straight
       off the annual hazard. Two costs outweigh it. (1) **It loses the clean ceilings.** At 1 in 290
       the round figure 1 in 300 would *understate* the bar (1/300 is smaller than 1/290), so the
       prudent ceilings become 1 in 250 / 2,500 / 25,000 --- uglier than what \$8 already gives.
       (2) :math:`K` **is derived, not chosen**: \$64 bn a year over eight billion people is \$8, and
       adjusting it to make an output round is a calibration move. Unlike the \$10 M ceiling, its
       direction would at least be *safe* --- over-stating a cost is prudent --- so this is a much
       milder case than the \$720,000 one, and it is recorded rather than dismissed. **If LLoL wants
       the cancellation anyway, the honest route is to change the ResearchCity budget to \$72 bn and
       let \$9 fall out of it**, not to round \$8 up for the arithmetic's sake.
   * - k6
     - s9
     - **[DECIDED 2026m09d04 --- one follow-on] How openly the paper reports that the sent**
       :math:`E = 720{,}000` **was fitted backwards.**
     - **Decided: not in the paper at all.** LLoL's ruling, on being shown the draft passage:
       *"I don't understand why $720,000 is in the paper at all ... The paragraph you showed sounds
       quite performative."* Correct. A general reader has never seen the German letter and neither
       has a referee, so the passage explained a parameter the paper does not use, from a document the
       reader does not have, to disclose a defect in something b16 never claimed. It also broke this
       project's own rule --- the MMv5 |rarr| OOv2 changelog opens by saying *"This page exists so that
       the paper does not have to carry its own history in its margins."*

       **All three drafting-history passages are now out of the paper**, each keeping its substance:
       the factor-table guard is stated forward (:math:`\eta = 2`, :math:`L = 50\%` returns exactly 2
       "for that pairing and no other"); the provenance box is replaced by **"Why this appendix reports
       a band and not a number"**, explaining the paper's *own* two routes rather than the letters; and
       SIA-16's review-versus-funding distinction stands on its own merits. Grep confirms zero
       occurrences of ``720``, ``German-language`` or ``enclosure`` in the paper.

       **FOLLOW-ON, still open.** The fitted-:math:`E` finding and the four-versus-five-percent
       resolution are real and must survive somewhere a reader can reach. They are in the session llog
       (``b16-erlangen-decision-arithmetic-import-llog_2026m09d04_11h30``, Finding 1). **When this
       revision is versioned, a changelog entry is needed** --- the OOv3 |rarr| next changelog, in the
       series of ``b16-changelog-mmv5-to-oov2`` and ``b16-changelog-oov2-to-oov3``. That is the right
       home: provenance, in full, outside the paper. Tie this to the supersede-don't-overwrite row.
   * - k5
     - s8
     - **[DONE 2026m09d04] Source the two scale figures used to make $64 bn legible.**
     - Opened and closed the same day. Both now rest on one source: ``SIPRI2025Milex`` gives world
       military expenditure of $2,718 bn in 2024 **and** a global military burden of 2.5 percent of
       world output, which fixes world output near $109 tn without a second citation. So $64 bn is
       about one fortieth of military spending and about six parts in ten thousand of world output,
       both rounded so as to *over*-state the cost. The remembered ~$2.4 tn figure the launch project
       flagged was close but stale; 2024 is $2,718 bn. **See the new row below** --- the SIPRI entry's
       author list is still unconfirmed.
   * - k6
     - s9
     - **[DONE 2026m09d04] Confirm the new decision-arithmetic bib entries.**
     - Nine entries added to ``source/_bib/b16-nuclear-risk.bib`` for SIA-15 and SIA-16; ``check-bib``
       clean, all nine resolve in the built HTML and PDF. **All closed the same day.** Two carried real
       errors, both caught only because LLoL asked; both are recorded in the entries' ``extranote``
       rather than silently overwritten.

       **``USDOT2021VSL`` --- was wrong twice, now read from the document.** The first version cited a
       supposed **2024** update at \$13.2 M in 2023 dollars, taken from secondary sources because
       transportation.gov returns **HTTP 403 to every automated request** (tested via WebFetch and via
       curl with a browser user-agent, and on the direct PDF link too). It also asserted DOT "revises
       this every year". **Both were wrong.** LLoL supplied the actual PDF
       (``balospe-launch/CC/DOT VSL Guidance - 2021 Update.pdf``): the document is the **March 2021**
       update, *Departmental Guidance: Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in
       Preparing Economic Analyses*, 11 pp. DOT reviews the guidance **periodically since 1993, not
       annually**. What the base year is actually for: the guidance sets a **\$9.1 million anchor in
       2012 dollars** (2013 update, average of nine studies) and has the **analyst** escalate it by
       ``VSL_T = VSL_0 x (P_T/P_0) x (I_T/I_0)^e`` --- CPI-U for prices, BLS Median Usual Weekly
       Earnings for real incomes, income elasticity **e = 1.0**. That is why escalated values for
       various base years circulate in secondary sources, and why a quoted VSL is meaningless without
       its base year. **b16 now cites the anchor, which does not age**, and Table 10's top row reads
       "the order of the US Department of Transportation's own guidance value of \$9.1 million in 2012
       dollars".

       **``SIPRI2025Milex`` --- author list was a guess and was wrong.** Entered as four names led by
       Tian; the fact sheet has **six led by Liang**: Xiao Liang, Nan Tian, Diego Lopes da Silva,
       Lorenzo Scarazzato, Zubaida A. Karim, Jade Guiberteau Ricard. Corrected. Month, the \$2,718 bn
       total and the 2.5 per cent military burden all confirmed on the same page.

       **Closed against the Crossref API:** ``Evans2005`` and ``Howard1966`` fully confirmed;
       ``Pratt1964`` confirmed except the end page (Crossref deposits only the start page 122);
       ``GroomMaddison2019`` confirmed on title, volume, issue and pages, with two deposit artefacts
       recorded (Crossref year 2018 for online-first against the 2019 issue; "Maddison Pr., David" is a
       deposit error for David Maddison).

       **Two judgement calls, decided with LLoL's approval 2026m09d04.** ``Arrow1965`` |rarr|
       **``Arrow1971``**, *Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing* (Markham, Chicago, 278 pp, checked
       against OpenLibrary) --- it reprints the 1965 Yrjö Jahnsson Lectures and a referee can actually
       obtain it. ``NeumannMorgenstern1944`` pagecount **625 |rarr| 641**, per the OpenLibrary record
       for the 1944 Princeton edition; editions differ (1980: 648), so it is edition-specific and
       flagged as such.

       **Recorded so a deliberate omission is not later mistaken for an oversight:** the **HM Treasury
       Green Book was NOT cited.** It would have supported ":math:`\eta` = 1 in official guidance", but
       a 2022 and a 2026 edition both exist and it could not be confirmed which carries that value.
       ``Evans2005`` and ``GroomMaddison2019`` already carry the claim, so the unverifiable source was
       cut rather than cited loosely.
   * - k4
     - s7
     - **Consider whether Section 9's new second half should carry a figure.**
     - Opened 2026m09d04. The break-even is a one-line inequality with a two-order-of-magnitude
       robustness claim attached, and the paper's other quantitative claims all carry a figure.
       A single plot of :math:`p^*` against :math:`r` on log axes, with the base rate, the
       hundredfold discount and the stake band drawn on, would make the invariance visible at a
       glance. Not blocking --- Table 10 carries the content --- but Section 9 is now the only
       heavily numeric ring section without one.
   * - k3
     - s3
     - **Decide whether the public** ``crisis/insurance`` **page is superseded by SIA-15.**
     - Opened 2026m09d04. ``balospe-launch/AAA-to-publish-at-Balospe.com/DecisionArithmetic/``
       holds a port-ready page targeted at ``source/crisis/insurance.rst`` that carries the
       expected-utility route (the coin-flip inversion, the sqrt utility, the 1-in-2,600 and
       the factor-100 table at 4.6 %). It has **not** been ported. Now that SIA-15 carries the
       same route as a cross-check and reports the band rather than the point, porting it
       unchanged would put a second, sharper set of numbers on the public site --- exactly the
       drift this session was called in to stop. Either re-sync it to the band or leave it
       unported. Cross-project; belongs to whoever moves it.

Larger than b16 --- tracked elsewhere, listed here only so they are not lost
=============================================================================

Per the placement rule, these do **not** belong in this file. Pointers only:

- **Migrate the deprecated ``Matheo-N`` citations** (2026m07d17 item #11). 116 occurrences
  across 22 files; renders as empty ``[]`` on 8 built pages including the **published**
  ``study/matheo/b15/b15-math-deadlock-mmv5``. **b16 OOv3 is clean and not affected.**
  Tracked as :doc:`POST AA b19 </_post/aa/b/19/b19-matheo-citation-infrastructure>`.
- **Cross-page bibliography capture.** Seven pages still use the capturing
  ``:filter: cited and True``. Same entry, item 1. This is what had b16's citations
  landing in b15's reference list until 2026m08d04.
- **Build-warning gating and link guards.**
  :doc:`AA b18 </_post/aa/b/18/b18-build-warning-gating-and-link-guards>`.


Done (kept, not deleted --- evidence of what was attempted)
=============================================================

- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- Pre-submission source checks: all four HELD.**

  - **Nobel 2025, "in an afternoon"** --- HELD verbatim. The Chicago *Declaration for the
    Prevention of Nuclear War* (p.1) reads: *"But there is only one challenge that could end
    civilization in an afternoon."* The paper quotes only the fragment ``"in an afternoon"``,
    so its framing verb ("can") sits outside the quotation marks and misquotes nothing ---
    though *could* would track the source more closely if the sentence is ever reworked.
  - **Rome/Vatican 2026, AI and human judgement** --- HELD verbatim: *"AI built into nuclear
    systems leaves little time for, or even replaces, human judgement in a crisis."* Note the
    words belong to the **Rome Declaration** (*Humanity at the Threshold*), reported by
    Diaz-Maurin and Mecklin, *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*, 2026m07d17.
  - **Guinness, "deadliest place to travel by road"** --- HELD. Record statement: *"The World
    Health Organisation (WHO) named Libya as the nation with the highest rate of road traffic
    deaths, with 73.4 per 100,000 people in 2013."* Guinness cites WHO *Global status report
    on road safety 2015*.
  - **Libya data-year** --- **already pinned and correct.** The paper reads "~73.4 per
    100,000 (2013)" at the stress-test baseline, and both bib entries record 2013 data from
    the WHO 2015 report. Independently confirmed via Guinness. No change needed.
- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- Remapped the ported Declarations to OOv3 structure.** The verbatim
  port carried OOv2 numbering that OOv3 does not have. Mapping applied:
  *Section 2.5* (Evolvix simulations) |rarr| **SIA-1**; *Section 4* (ResearchCity) |rarr|
  **Section 6**; *"headline table"* (sceptical critic's rate) |rarr| **Table 3 in SIA-5**,
  with Tertrais's corner worked through in **Section 10**; *Section 2.6* (every soft input
  pushed against the conclusion) |rarr| **Table 7 in SIA-9**; *Section 4.0a* (reverse
  exposure) |rarr| **SIA-X5**; *Section 2.0a* (headline figure) |rarr| **Section 4**.
  The Provenance link text now reads "MMv5 and OOv2" (matching its target) and a second
  link to the OOv2 |rarr| OOv3 changelog was added.
- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- Restored the closing Declarations + ``.. bibliography::`` to OOv3.**
  The OOv2 -> OOv3 port had dropped both. Consequence while missing: all 31 ``:cite:`` calls
  resolved into **another paper's** reference list
  (``study/matheo/b15/b15-math-deadlock-mmv5``), and OOv3 rendered no references of its own.
- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- Converted the one ``:cite:`Matheo-b19``` to ``:doc:``**, matching the 15
  sibling ``:doc:`Matheo-bNN``` refs already in the paper. Provisional, without prejudice to
  the BibTeX review above.
- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- §1 empire-collapse paragraph reworded** to shift from an unprovable
  assertion ("the quiet since WWII is merely the calm before a firestorm") to a
  burden-of-proof argument built on Arkhipov's asymmetry-of-consequences logic, with the
  forecast explicitly decoupled from it.
- ✅ **2026m08d04 --- ``Kemp2025`` added** and promoted to ``references.bib``.
- ✅ 2026m07d17 session --- see ``AHA/aa-b16-session-2026m07d17.md`` for that session's DONE
  list (Nobel refs, GAO-09-39, Libya 73.4, FRBR, link-in-note robustness, supersede-don't-
  overwrite decision).
