r/place A fruit fly for organization science

out/_head.md

Saved at B3.B3b: check. This reading copy substitutes participant identifiers in saved text; it is not a new interview response. Reading Markdown.

Participant handles in these reading copies use the pixel stream's identifiers: base64(SHA1(username)), case preserved, without a salt. These are linkable pseudonyms. Profile links are removed; missing-author markers remain. Original research files are unchanged. Quote offsets refer to original text. Source and reading-copy hashes are listed separately.

Source commit: 25b2a8e4a123, 2026-10-12T23:18:58+02:00. Saved-state date: 2026-10-12T21:18:42Z. Catalogue close receipt Commit date and saved-state date are distinct.

Original GitHub file. Original SHA-256: c30a6d4cf0cfe13bd5d37f99d1a3a7c1a98bbf487c7652420562dc86cdad43af. Reading-copy SHA-256: fa3e4e8c41cd04e68781d969f9d69bb1b3dc4d3b7d468caa6b548c57dd4615bd.

Head, claude-v43-1

Under 3,000 words, rewritten whole at every close. Last written at B3b, 2026-10-12 (UTC). Stage B3 is closed: the fleet is complete, assembled and checked, and the reports and handback-B3.md are written on the assembly of record. Stage B4 comes next.

The method question, in one sentence

Can independently reconstructed case histories be composed into a shared dynamic account that supports explanations at successive levels of specificity, from population-wide patterns, through forms and subforms, to particular organizational histories, while keeping access to the evidence from which those explanations were developed?

The theory question is unchanged: when strangers organize on a clock they did not set, with no way to compel anyone and no goal given to them, what forms does organizing take, how do they differ in their functioning, and which of them keep the work alive?

Where the run stands

Stage A1 is closed. Stage B1 (the third-order scheme, 197 themes in 21 families) is done. Stage B2, the pilot, is done: three rounds, the freeze, the gold round and the stability check (pilot_report.md, stability-B2.md, handback-B2.md). Stage B3, the fleet, is done. B3a built it. Group 1 passed the gold check (B3a-p2), and group 2 went out. B3b, the check leg, closed the stage: see "B3b" below.

Stage B3, as built (B3a)

J's ruling (QB3-001, QB3-002, 16:37 Berlin). B3 uses B2's packet shape: every packet self-contained, at most 15 items and 180,000 bytes of item text, no parts, its own item count; a room may spread over several packets, each with the sibling blocks of the rooms it holds; gold copies listed in items and gold_items, exempt from room membership and coverage; records ride on the item line; pass-2 lines carry revises after the pass-1 lines; warm-up in reserve, no exemplars. The handler fixed the check (7,844 items, the withdrawn split ignored) and fleet.py (room-id guard on id positions only; 0-line packets accepted). The first build (whole rooms in parts) is kept under out/_analysis/*_parts_superseded*.

Declarations (notes-B3.md): R = 2; seed 20261015 (under :redraw2); 15 positions and 180,000 bytes of item text a packet; rooms poured in seeded order and spread where a batch fills; gold one copy per 20 items, at most two a batch, positions spread least-used first; one duplicate a batch; no exemplars; warm-up in reserve (B2's agreement fell, not rose, within packets); dispatch in two groups, 100 then 1,110, the gold check between; the ten biggest bags flagged; cost about 40 to 55 USD.

Built. out/_analysis/b3_allocate2.py wrote batches-B3.jsonl: 1,210 batches, one reader each (605 a replicate); one component; each replicate places the 7,844 items once; 17,653 positions (15,688 readings, 1,210 duplicates, 755 gold copies, 18 or 19 per gold item). out/_analysis/b3_packets_fleet2.py wrote _packets-B3/: 22 shared pages, 1,210 packets (at most 178,758 item bytes), fleet ids only, codes_by_item in the MANIFEST. One coder note held a room id (nyjets t11, c0104): served as its fleet id. RETURN-B3.md carries J's two rulings word for word. validate.py B3: 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Group 1 and the gold check (B3a-p2). J sent the first 100 batches at 15:17Z. They returned 100 valid replies (4 reissued, 0 exhausted; _fleet_raw/B3/PARTIAL-2026-10-12T153202Z.json). No DONE exists yet, and I write none. The stop rule was declared in notes-B3.md before scoring: a fall over 0.193 (1 − 0.807) in gold fidelity or primary match, against the mean of B2's nine frozen-scheme readings of the same items, stops group 2. Of the 72 gold copies seeded, 72 came back. Fidelity was 0.637 against 0.625 (fall −0.011, interval −0.065 to +0.045), and primary match 0.833 against 0.812. So group 2 goes out as built. Five items had their own fall beyond the floor on 1 to 4 copies each, among them ukraine t07 (T3-073 placed for T3-009). Per copy: out/_analysis/b3_gold_group1.tsv. fidelity-B3.md waits for the check leg.

B3b, the check leg (closed).

Stage B2, in short

The rounds. The next table lists the figures (mean Jaccard; fidelity is agreement with my placements, pairwise the readers' with each other).

round set fidelity against rechecked pairwise alpha
1 40 hard 0.594 - 0.733 0.726
2 50 hard 0.639 0.701 0.718 0.710
3 50 hard 0.682 0.760 0.728 0.721
gold 40 gold, frozen scheme 0.624 0.661 0.818 0.809

Readers. Round 1 ran deepseek-v4-flash-0731 through @preset/cheap at high effort. From round 2 on: deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash, called directly, medium effort, max_tokens 128,000. The same readers serve B3 and B4 (J, 2026-10-12).

Stability 0.807. The gold set under two reworded briefs: stab-1 readers against stab-2 readers, nine pairs per item. It sits level with each round's own pairwise (0.800, 0.756), so the brief's wording adds no disagreement. It is the floor every later figure is read against.

What the pilot showed.

The frozen scheme. scheme_final.jsonl (197 themes; tier "main" 183, "rare" 14, J at QB2-014; sha256 4b471d29...), scheme_final.md, families.jsonl (21). All 496 gate pairs confirmed in gate_checks.jsonl. The freeze gave T3-002, T3-033 and T3-038 one rule: count the concepts of each act, the most is primary, the opening post does not lead because it comes first. That rule is the sentence I am least sure a stranger reads as I meant.

Edits. scheme_edits.jsonl 306 lines: 202 word-for-word mirrors, 100 scheme-ambiguous, 4 author-error; no theme narrowed, no edited theme's base rate fell on gold.

J's rulings that bind B3 (carry them)

Standing words from J and the PI (carry into every head)

J's words for B1 (7 October 2026): "national elements are very important here"; "we need to get as much variance on organizing behavior early on so that later we have enough to create the model". National, political and conflict content is study material, named as plainly as any other. The handler's rule: a choice to leave out or soften content for any reason other than the study's goes to J first with mem.py ask, and the content stays meanwhile.

J on reading (11 October, 16:54 Berlin). Stop cutting room reads to a line length. Read room lines whole. Page a long read by line ranges or offset, never by truncating lines. Use --width N on a mem.py read if a clip is ever needed; the guard refuses cut -c after mem.py.

J on asking (11 October, 17:01 Berlin). Ask J with mem.py ask whenever a question is needed; asking does not stop the run.

The PI's clarifications (8 October, approved by J): the thresholds are the design's heuristic; the rule is unchanged.

How to work, from J (8 October, 23:45 Berlin, "can you do a hot change for the batching?"; relayed by the handler at 22:03Z; carry this paragraph into every head). A change in how I work, not in what I read or decide. Fewer turns. When two or more tool calls do not depend on each other's output, make them in one turn. Chain ordered commands in one Bash call with &&, so that a failure stops the rest; for example, the mem.py log or note just decided, then the next mem.py codes. Never put a write in the same turn as the read it depends on. Never run two writes to the same file as separate parallel calls. Keep one room's material per read, as now. Every tool still writes its own record; nothing about what I read or decide changes.

Two rules from J at B1b-29 (through the handler, 20:10Z; carry them into every head). Write rule 0 lines and bags with b1_multiplace_write4.py and b1_bags_from_file2.py, not the old scripts, which made one mem.py call per row of the whole table and grew to 8.5 minutes a write. Never end a turn while a job runs in the background; run every write and check in the foreground.

The pilot's declarations (from notes-B2.md)

The scheme

scheme_final.jsonl holds 197 themes (183 main, 14 rare) in 21 families. Rare: T3-007, T3-025, T3-067, T3-077, T3-093, T3-106, T3-128, T3-133, T3-144, T3-161, T3-166, T3-186, T3-191 and T3-197. F-001, as superseded: half the 7,786 placed second-order themes sit on one kind; themes about dealing with other rooms need the most kinds.

Open, carried

Ledgers at this close

Rules kept

The next comparison

In B3, against stage B2's figures: gold fidelity against gold_items.jsonl and the rechecked gold placements (0.624, 0.661), primary match (0.800), and agreement read above the stability floor (0.807).