# Sensitivity Tests

These tests make v0.2 harder to dismiss by forcing the package to survive aggressive skeptic-friendly adjustments.

The goal is not to protect the conclusion. The goal is to discover whether the staged path still holds after obvious critic objections are applied.

## Test A: Root Cluster Cap

### Skeptic Objection

The root metaphysics stage may overcount dependent evidence.

A critic can say:

> You counted fine-tuning, entropy, constants, origin of life, math, consciousness, and teleology as separate when they may be correlated.

### Required Response

Group root evidence into named clusters, then cap each cluster before combining them.

Use these clusters:

1. Cosmic order cluster
2. Fine-tuning cluster
3. Information/life cluster
4. Mind/reason cluster
5. Moral/personhood cluster
6. Abstracta/math cluster

### Candidate Cluster Map

These are starting candidates only. Codex should verify actual IDs exist before using them.

```text
cosmic_order:
  E-COSMO-BGV
  E-COSMO-LOW-ENTROPY
  E-LOW-ENTROPY-PAST
  E-LOW-INITIAL-ENTROPY
  E-ARROW-DESITTER
  E-FLATNESS-HORIZON

fine_tuning:
  E-FINETUNE
  E-FINETUNE-CONSTANTS
  E-CC-SMALLNESS
  E-HOYLE-RESONANCE-C12
  E-FINE-STRUCTURE-ALPHA
  E-GRAVITY-EM-RATIO
  E-PROTON-ELECTRON-RATIO
  E-BARYON-PHOTON-RATIO
  E-HIGGS-HIERARCHY
  E-NEUTRINO-MASS-FINETUNE
  E-STRONG-CP-THETA

information_life:
  E-OOL
  E-OOL-CHEM-PROGRESS
  E-OOL-INFORMATION-GAP
  E-RNA-WORLD-EVIDENCE
  E-SEMANTIC-FUNCTIONAL-INFO
  E-PROTEIN-SEARCH-SPACE
  E-HOMOCHIRALITY-MECH
  E-OOL-HOMOCHIRALITY

mind_reason:
  E-CONSCIOUSNESS
  E-EAAN-PLANTINGA
  E-INTENTIONALITY-ABOUTNESS
  E-GWT-QUALIA-GAP
  E-RELIABILITY-OF-REASON
  E-BINDING-PROBLEM

moral_personhood:
  E-LOVE-ESSENTIAL
  E-GOD-RELATIONAL
  E-LIBET-REVISITED
  E-ANTHRO-PERSECUTION-COST

abstracta_math:
  E-UNREASONABLE-MATH
  E-MATH-INDISPENSABILITY
  E-HOTT-FOUNDATIONS
  E-ABSTRACT-STRUCT
  E-ABSTRACT-MODAL-NET
  E-ABSTRACT-CATEGORY-UNITY
  E-CATEGORY-TQFT
  E-NOETHER-SYMMETRY
  E-PLATONISM-NOMINALISM
```

### Method

If the package has scoring utilities, implement the cap in the scoring layer. If it does not, create a runtime report that summarizes what would change under capped cluster contributions.

Use three cap profiles:

```text
aggressive_root_cap:
  max one dominant evidence-equivalent per cluster
  strong shrinkage of dependent items

moderate_root_cap:
  allow a primary item plus partial contribution from independent subitems

light_root_cap:
  only shrink obviously dependent duplicates
```

Required output:

```text
After aggressive root-cluster shrinkage, does the staged path still favor Christ as Logos?
Which root clusters remain decisive?
Which root clusters become merely supportive?
Which evidence items should be marked dependency-sensitive?
```

## Test B: Conditioned Prior Clamp

### Skeptic Objection

The resurrection stage becomes much stronger once conditioned on God and Christ identity. That may be legitimate, but a critic can say:

> You raised the prior too much.

### Required Response

Run resurrection and Logos synthesis under three maximum conditioned-prior clamps:

```text
skeptical_clamp: max conditioned prior 25%
moderate_clamp: max conditioned prior 50%
current_clamp: max conditioned prior 75%
```

Required output:

```text
Under 25%, 50%, and 75% conditioned-prior clamps:
- Which resurrection alternative becomes strongest?
- Does resurrection remain live, favored, or dominant?
- Does Christ as Logos remain the best synthesis endpoint?
- Which assumptions carry the largest effect?
```

## Test C: Best Naturalism Steelman

### Skeptic Objection

The Signal may be comparing Christianity to weak naturalism rather than the strongest contemporary naturalist coalition.

### Required Response

Do not test village-atheist materialism.

Test the strongest naturalist coalition:

```text
nonreductive physicalism
emergentism
Russellian monism
panpsychist-friendly naturalism
structural realism
moral realism without God
evolutionary debunking replies
mathematical Platonism plus naturalism
social/cognitive accounts of religion
```

Required output:

```text
Is this a unified worldview, or a patched coalition of local solutions?
Does it preserve the whole field, or does it solve one burden by importing another?
Where does it explain well?
Where does it reduce?
Where does it borrow?
Where does it defer?
Where does it evade?
```

## Passing Standard

The Signal v0.2 should not pass by rhetorical force.

It passes this layer only if the synthesis remains stronger after:

1. root evidence is cluster-capped,
2. resurrection conditioned priors are clamped,
3. naturalism is steelmanned,
4. rival collapse risks are disclosed,
5. caveats are preserved.

## Failure Standard

The synthesis weakens if:

- the root stage depends on heavy double-counting,
- the resurrection stage survives only under a generous conditioned prior,
- naturalism can preserve truth, reason, consciousness, moral obligation, personhood, mathematics, history, and Jesus/resurrection data without reduction or borrowed capital,
- Christ as Logos requires suppressing caveats or flattening rival strengths.
