This is an earlier experiment. Read the amendments below before treating its findings as current.

The question

Speed-matching caused the delay, so it was switched off, with own dodging kept at a fifth. That cost some safety, so the craft then announced its next seconds of flight as a moving reserved corridor that other craft leave.

What was tested

Runs at 2× with speed-matching off or at 5 %, then three corridor shapes.

What was found then

With speed-matching off the craft was on time, but ordinary losses rose from 82 to 91 and the emergency craft was lost once in five runs. A 5 % share was no cheap middle ground, so zero was chosen. The 10-second wide corridor kept it on time, with 78 ordinary losses and no emergency craft lost, a gain within noise. The narrow 10-second corridor lost the most (101), read then as width, not warning time, buying safety. On the layered network ordinary losses did not differ.

What we learned later

LATER / CYCLE 191

The 'no cheap middle setting' reading was narrowed: the three settings behaved roughly in a straight line, shares between 0 and 5 % were not tried, and 5 % met the timing target on the layered network.

research/design/prio_align0_record.md (P11)

LATER / CYCLE 192

'Width, not warning time, buys safety' was softened to a guess: three versions on one test case cannot separate a width effect from scatter.

research/design/prio_corridor_record.md

What changed

Switches for the speed-matching share and the reserved corridor were added, off by default. The 'calm set' of emergency rules (speed-matching off, own dodging at a fifth, 10-second wide corridor) was carried forward, not adopted.

Corrections retained in the record

  • Earlier wording: 20 more half-hour runs ... With its flocking off and its dodge kept at a fifth

    Record correction: Of the 20 runs, 10 had flocking off and 10 had a 5 % flocking share.

    research/design/prio_align0_record.md (Arms)

Numbers and source references
20 / 30
runs in the two cyclesresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md; research/design/prio_corridor_record.md
2×
emergency craft speedresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md
five
seeds per versionresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md
a fifth
own dodge strength keptresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md
5 %
partial flocking share testedresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md
1.040 / 1.013
lap ratio with flocking off, grid / latticeresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md (P9)
91 vs 82
ordinary craft lost, flocking off vs flocking at a fifthresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md (P10)
1 of 5
runs in which the emergency craft was lost with flocking offresearch/design/prio_align0_record.md
5 s / 10 s
tube look-ahead timesresearch/design/prio_corridor_record.md
1.047
grid lap ratio with the 10 s wide tuberesearch/design/prio_corridor_record.md (P13)
78
ordinary craft lost with the 10 s wide tuberesearch/design/prio_corridor_record.md
0
emergency craft lost with the 10 s wide tuberesearch/design/prio_corridor_record.md (P13)
101
ordinary craft lost with the 10 s narrow tuberesearch/design/prio_corridor_record.md
Original structured record ↗