**2026-08-11 — Stop padding time estimates.** GG: "You generally massively overestimate the time it
takes to do some work... You're fast." Phase-1 items I scoped as "Week 1" took ~an hour. Rule: state
what will be done and in what order; give a duration only when compute-bound (training walltime), and
base it on measured runtimes, not human-project heuristics.

**2026-08-11 — Correspondence is not identity; interpretation is not prediction (manuscript reviews).**
The external review's core corrections, to internalise for all paper claims: (1) distinguish
interpretation / explanation / prediction and claim only the level the evidence supports; (2) a
minimal model being exactly Wright-Fisher does not make real training "literally" WF — our own
learning-kernel result says otherwise (cite it against ourselves); (3) name the operator every claim
is about (output-mean vs weight-average vs max-with-oracle vs routing are different objects with
different budgets); (4) don't write "nobody has / none imports" — invite no priority disputes; say
"to our knowledge" and state the positive contribution; (5) negative results (E13b) are strengths —
lead with them; (6) "control theory" needs states/controls/dynamics/rule or it's a "framework".