The population: the return

What the return changed

Before the revision, two readers judged that the model composed 201 communities fully and 489 in part; after it, 630 fully and 56 in part. Where the two readers disagreed, the aggregator that revised the model ruled; at the re-check it ruled 160 of 161 such cases as composing fully. These figures are an internal check.

One case: repair and change

The first model said communities keep their work by repairing changed pixels. The return showed that repair can also undo a change the community wanted. r/PlaceNL's members planned blue canal houses and a windmill on their flag, and their own defense script erased the houses: the little houses are all being wiped away (our translation).

Corrections from r/OnePiece and r/leagueoflegends, supported by r/monsterhunter and r/portugal, triggered the revision of P05, the model's account of repair, and the aggregator found the same mechanism in 67 communities. The revised claim: repair restores the form the keepers know, so an agreed change can be erased as damage until they are told of it. The re-check found its limit: in six communities, keepers recognized the new shape without being told. The full case on r/PlaceNL's return page.

The r/place subreddit: three entries, tested by the communities

The communities saw the event from inside. r/place itself, the subreddit where they met, recruited and negotiated, falls outside the census; the run calls it the field. A separate agent, the Field agent, read it. Its analysis was unfinished at C4, so it gave the aggregator an interim reading. That reading corrected claims about templates, the end of the canvas and communities that formed during the event, and entered two elements and an arrow as tentative, to be put to every community at the return.

So r/place shaped the model through the communities' own records. The comparison it was meant for, the final model against a completed model of r/place, is still pending. How C4 works · The saved C4 comparison

Two versions of the model

The return in numbers

To prepare the return (D1), the aggregator wrote the model in a fixed vocabulary of 51 entries, 30 elements and 21 arrows, and built one task for each community with its expectations: 9,329 entries it expected the community to show and 311 it expected to be absent.

Every community coder answered the model twice: the model sent out on 15 October, at D2, and the revised model of 24 October, at the re-check. For each community, two readers judged whether the model composes its coding; where they disagreed, the aggregator ruled.

At the re-check the aggregator ruled 160 of its 161 disagreements as composing fully. The readers worked from the community coders' returns, and the aggregator that revised the model settled their disagreements, so these figures are an internal check.

The community coders proposed 42,243 changes at D2 and 53,493 at the re-check.

Most of them map the model onto the community: at D2, 17,648 instantiate an element and 14,675 mark one absent. The other 9,920 ask the model to change: they restrict a claim, add a step, a condition or a link, propose a new element or contradict a claim. Each community proposed between 21 and 91 changes, with a median of 60.

Steps, strengths and limitations

Question the agent at its checkpoints: D1, build · D2, check · D3, the close of D3.

The community coders' D2 and D3 sessions are saved but not yet released as bundles.

In the contract

This page covers stages D1 to D3 of the contract v43 of the aggregator: the site summarizes the result of all 3, and each has saved checkpoints you can question.