27 Sep 2026 · 10:06 AM MTUpdated…
Authored research record

Research output

← All research outputs

q-languageFinding recorded

What FantasyPros weight minimises fantasy-point MAE per position beside our number, and is the shipped pooled consensus.WEIGHT = 0.40 the wrong constant or the wrong shape?

Owner lane: q-language

Question

What FantasyPros weight minimises fantasy-point MAE per position beside our number, and is the shipped pooled consensus.WEIGHT = 0.40 the wrong constant or the wrong shape?

Prediction

Registered on H-235 at 2026-09-15T1843Z, before the script existed: trained pooled optimum 0.55-0.75 (H-190's 0.70), QB highest. H-190 CONFIRMED iff trained pooled optimum in [0.60, 0.80], QB optimum >= 0.80 and the T walk-forward-vs-0.40 contrast's Bonferroni-8 interval excludes 0 below; REFUTED iff pooled optimum within 0.40 +/- 0.10 and that contrast spans 0; else PARTIAL. Follow-ons (written before each ran): the archive's edge does not grow on unannounced snap collapses (honest vintage); the clamp binds on >= 15% of covered rows at w=1, (w=1, no clamp) is worse than (w=1, 0.6), and the 2-D argmin is at w < 0.95 with MAX_MOVE < 0.6.

Finding and verdict

PARTIAL by the registered rule, and the claim's SHAPE is wrong. Direction confirmed and stronger than H-190 said: the MAE-optimal FantasyPros weight at the shipped clamp is 0.95 pooled [0.85, 1.00], QB 1.0, RB 0.95, WR 0.95, TE 0.85; walk-forward per-position weights (0.85-1.0) beat 0.40 by -0.0488 [-0.0700, -0.0227] Bonferroni-8 on 2024-25 trained rows and -0.1076 [-0.1308, -0.0821] on the served row; flex_sym +2.73pp [+1.74, +3.54] served. REFUTED on 'per-position': one pooled weight is equal (+0.0008). And the weight is confounded with MAX_MOVE: unclamped, the optimum is 0.60 pooled and the consensus alone barely beats us (-0.029); the clamp is doing a third of the work. Archive vintage: the falsifier found no outcome leakage (consensus is WORSE than us on unannounced collapses, edge -0.386, bias +4.38 vs +4.14), which does not prove a pre-kickoff vintage. DISCOVERY; not a change proposal.

Reasoning

H-190's number (0.70) came from a curve that crossed the clamp; the weight a lane fits is whatever the clamp leaves.

Source provenance and publication scope

Owned research record: research/scientist/experiments/2026-09-23T0253Z-h190-consensus-weight-per-position.json

This public reading view includes authored question, finding, review, reasoning and next action fields. Raw measurements, commands, logs and local paths are withheld. The record ID clock is not proof of completion or deployment.