009

research/hypotheses.md

@@ -180,9 +180,19 @@ Confidence is deliberately qualitative until there is playtest evidence.
 
 ## H23 — Changing enemy ecology can preserve compositional reasoning
 
-- **Confidence:** unresolved; first 008 run was too short at build maturity
+- **Confidence:** low as implemented; ecology was legible but not consequential
 - **Evidence for:** Without prompting, the player concluded that Bloom excelled against small enemies while Arc performed better against large enemies. Conditional target profiles can make component knowledge transfer while preventing one exact build from answering every field.
 - **Evidence against:** Experiment 003's changing requirements collapsed into obvious prescribed counter-parts. In 007, taking all mutation families together may dominate, and all-Bloom's aggressive scaling may erase ecology distinctions through raw power.
 - **Experiments:** 003 is negative adjacent evidence; 007 generated the hypothesis; 008 first run supplied only one short field after the fourth choice and could not isolate it.
 - **Evidence update:** In 008 the player used three different builds and believed multiple approaches may exist, but reported that each expedition ended just as something cool began emerging. The fourth module was active for only 7–22 seconds. Conduit-first was a misunderstanding, not planned interface composition.
+- **Revision 2 evidence:** Added mature fields made choice effects easier to see and supported small movement-strategy refinements. Builds differentiated and Bloom+Arc stopped being universal. However, the player believed almost any build or even baseline fire could complete every expedition; no exclusion created a relevant limitation, so the cap generated little meaningful tradeoff.
+- **Interpretation:** Population variety cannot preserve reasoning when success is insensitive to the composition. Simply raising difficulty remains an untested and potentially confounded correction.
+
+## H24 — Enjoyable building needs capability-sensitive consequence
+
+- **Confidence:** high as a requirement; the suitable consequence remains unresolved
+- **Evidence for:** In 008 revision 2, longer exposure made three causal builds legible and building was explicitly reported enjoyable. It simultaneously felt meaningless because nearly any build or baseline fire appeared sufficient. Earlier 000/001/003 failures also lacked consequences sensitive to deeper construction, while 002's survival/wave stakes gave upgrades instrumental value before one strategy dominated.
+- **Evidence against:** Pure sandbox building can be enjoyable without external failure when the output is expressive enough. Experiment 007 generated repeated build tests from surprise and spectacle alone, so hard challenge is not always required.
+- **Experiments:** 000, 001, 002, 003, 007, 008
+- **Unresolved:** Can capability-sensitive enemies make exact qualitative building matter through multiple causal routes without collapsing into obvious counters or raw throughput pressure?
 - **Unresolved:** Can mixed/behavioral ecologies support several viable causal compositions, or does adaptation become “equip the labeled counter”?