Personally, I think it’s at an acceptable level, but are there still minor bugs or inconsistencies remaining?
Your updated post #7 is much better scoped.
What remains is mostly “make the post match what a reader sees in the Space and code,” plus a few small wording and formatting changes that prevent nitpicks.
1) Fix the biggest “reader-visible mismatch”: you say you track S and E, but the 3×3 run UI does not show them
In #7 you say you “track a minimal-self score” and define E as normalized error-variability.
In the Space code, the “Single agent (v1–v3)” tab only outputs predictive rate and last error. No E. No S. (Hugging Face)
Two good options. Pick one.
Option A: update the post wording (fastest).
Change “I track a minimal-self score” to “I track predictive rate and recent errors in the run panel, and explore S in the S-equation panel.”
Option B: update the Space UI (best long-term).
Compute E from the rolling error window and display S and an “awake” label in the 3×3 run tab.
If you choose option B, your post’s formula should be shown as:
S = P(1-E)B
and your “awake” label as:
S > 62
This aligns with your own README wording.
2) There is a real bug in run_single: it returns after one step
Your loop in run_single returns inside the for-loop, so “Steps” effectively does nothing. (Hugging Face)
Why it matters for the forum post: your post invites readers to “watch predictive rate and recent error values evolve,” but the function currently exits immediately.
Fixing this one bug will make your “reproducible, inspectable” pitch feel true in practice.
3) Replace the bracketed equation blocks in the post with KaTeX-style display math
Right now the post uses bracketed blocks like:
[ S = ... ] and includes a “shadow” macro that is not consistent with your new formatting constraint.
Rewrite those two blocks as:
S = P(1-E)B
S = \Xi(1-\mathrm{shadow})R
This is cleaner, consistent, and prevents people from arguing about notation instead of substance.
4) Make P and E “operational” with one short definition each
You already say P is “prediction vs actual (with noise / obstacle interactions).”
Your code now truly does this: it computes error as the norm between “actual” and “predicted,” with obstacle motion and an action-slip probability. (Hugging Face)
Add one small “Operational definitions” block to the post. Example (short and precise):
- “Error is computed each step as the distance between predicted next state and realized next state.”
- “P is a 0–100 transformation of the rolling mean error over the last k steps.”
- “E is the normalized variability of that rolling error window.”
If you want one KaTeX-safe sketch for E normalization that readers recognize as legitimate:
E = \min\left(1,\frac{\mathrm{Var}(e_{t-k+1:t})}{M^2/4}\right)
Here M is the maximum possible error scale you already define in code. (Hugging Face)
This avoids “E is handwavy” replies without turning your post into a paper.
5) Define what \Xi, shadow, and R mean in one phrase each
You already warn these update rules are hand-tuned. Good.
But you still need one plain-language phrase per symbol so readers can follow the lattice story:
- \Xi: “foresight field”
- shadow: “uncertainty field”
- R: “reality anchor”
Your Zenodo record also uses that kind of language and explicitly frames the codex symbols that way. (DOI)
Even if the symbols are “toy,” definitions stop confusion.
6) Put the coupling rule directly into the post in 3 lines
You already say the wave is “threshold cascade under explicit neighbour coupling.”
Show the coupling so nobody claims “hidden emergence.”
Your code’s two-agent contagion is basically:
\Xi_B \leftarrow \Xi_B + gS_A
\mathrm{shadow}_B \leftarrow \max(0.1,\mathrm{shadow}_B-d)
R_B \leftarrow R_B + r
This is exactly what the code does conceptually, and it matches your “engineered coupling” disclaimer. (Hugging Face)
7) Reduce “62” pushback by adding one single calibration sentence
You already say 62 is a design cutoff and you plan sweeps later. Keep that.
But your Zenodo description claims 62 was derived from logistic regression and large runs. That is a stronger claim. (DOI)
To prevent readers from calling this inconsistent, choose one stance and state it plainly.
Best middle-ground sentence for the forum post:
- “62 is the current illustrative cutoff; a published sweep over baseline policies and seeds is planned.”
Or, if you want to keep the “fit” claim, add a minimal artifact:
- “Across N seeds for baseline policy X, the S histogram separates around 62.”
Even a tiny chart screenshot is enough to stop “magic number” replies.
8) Make the “Body bit” next-step actionable, not just aspirational
Your post already says B is manual and should become intervention-derived. Good.
Add a concrete one-liner spec contributors can implement:
- “Compute B from interventions: how much changing action changes next observation distribution.”
If you want to anchor it to a known metric, empowerment is the cleanest formal cousin of what you describe (control of future observations). (arXiv)
9) Align the “watch it evolve” UI promise with how the Space actually behaves
Your post promises users can “watch predictive rate and recent error values evolve.”
Right now the 3×3 tab returns a single image and numbers on click, not a time series. (Hugging Face)
Two good improvements:
- show a small line plot of error and P over time, or
- output the last k errors as a list.
If you do not want to implement plotting, just change the post wording to “observe” instead of “watch evolve.”
10) Collaboration friction: your licensing text discourages exactly the collaboration you ask for
Your README says “All rights reserved” style restrictions and “Do not reuse code” without permission. (Hugging Face)
But your forum post asks for scaling, APIs, and co-development.
If you want actual contributors, add one sentence in the post clarifying what collaboration is allowed:
- “PRs welcome in this Space repo” or
- “I will accept contributions but derivatives require permission” or
- move to a standard open license for the code.
Without this, many serious HF builders will quietly disengage.
Summary bullets
- Make the post match the Space: either show E and S in the 3×3 run tab or soften “I track S” wording.
- Fix the
run_single one-step return bug so “Steps” actually works. (Hugging Face)
- Replace bracket equations with clean display math blocks and consistent symbols.
- Add 3-line operational definitions for P and E, plus 3-line coupling rules. (Hugging Face)
- Resolve the “62 is illustrative” vs “62 is fit by regression” tension between the forum post and Zenodo description.
- Clarify licensing or contribution rules so the “ask” can realistically succeed. (Hugging Face)
Try it yourself: huggingface.co/spaces/RFTSystems/minimal_self