Does the new setting hold on fresh layouts and close-call checks?

The question

The wing's 22 m/s result came from the runs the setting was picked on, and the test sets had never been checked for close calls. Both needed settling before adoption.

What was tested

Two fresh sets of layouts on the wing crossing. All 1 935 runs of the storm and standard mixed test sets were re-flown with the close-call gauge, for the old controller and both candidates on three airframes. Then the default was switched, with proof runs.

What was found then

Fresh layouts held: at 22 m/s the new setting lost 38 and 40 craft where the old lost 102 and 116. Over five sets, wing losses were 0.21 to 0.43 of the old controller's. On the mixed set, deep time inside the old bubble fell to a third. In storms it rose slightly (1.09–1.35×), within the range agreed in advance as no real difference, and sat above the full-room version on multirotor and eVTOL. On the crossing at 22 m/s, deep stays were fewer but longer (2.3 s against 1.8 s).

What we learned later

What changed

Since cycle 148, slow-responding craft by default react earlier: each treats a closing neighbour as if it will pass nearer than predicted, by 5 × closing speed × its own response delay. Their extra room is set to three-quarters of the old amount. The old controller can still be selected.