# Note to Mike

Final score: 10/10 (round 10, maximally strict rater).

Why the loop stopped: hit 10/10 after 10 rounds. Per your rules we ran at least 5 rounds, used a fresh ask-colleague subagent rater each round (no peeking at previous scores), and tightened strictness after high scores (strict from round 5, extra-strict rounds 6-9, maximally strict round 10). Scores moved 3 → 7 → 8 → 9 → 9 → 8 → 8 → 8 → 9 → 10, so no 5-turn stall.

On your core concern: still carried, not traded away. The fixed 250-task gate is gone (Dan's persona never supported N-as-credibility), but your false-precision worry is now enforced more strictly than a task count: provisional-vs-scored tiers, pilot floors with uncertainty veto (95% CIs, overlap = no winner), kappa withhold, 2-vs-1 dissent rule, always-publish tasks/failures/limits, and scored = practitioner-diagnostic only until completed external replication. Small-N numbers can publish, but never as researcher-facing winner calls.

Caveat: this is a substance simulation from public web sources (personas/dan.md), not the real Dan. Verify load-bearing assumptions with him before acting.