---
slug: pascals-wager-decision-theory
passed: 2026-10-14
by: the assay line (research/assay-line/cited-1014b/), Codex fixer directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by Codex, checked by Codex and a Claude agent
checked: 113
confirmed: 102
wrong: 11
unverifiable: 0
observed: 0
stale: 0
---

This pass implements the directing instance's cited-1014b triage for pascals-wager-decision-theory at 67088387e0. The fixer re-read the evidence for all 12 triage items, reproduced the three interface findings by executing the pinned page script, fixed 11 item reports representing six distinct errors, and rejected K4 on its stated scope. The record also retains 101 distinct CONFIRMED entries from the two existing checker records, with their provenance and pinned scope; it does not claim a fresh complete audit of those confirmations or a new live-site fetch. The eight WRONG and three MINOR item lines count toward wrong: 11. Repeated reports have separate claim and finding lines but share one page correction per distinct WRONG error. The original source record and checker reports remain at research/assay-line/cited-1014b/pascals-wager-decision-theory/.

## Claims

- WRONG | The twist: infinity opens a fault in ordinary expected-value ranking, the fault later dramatized by Pascal's mugging and still debated in decision theory. | https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf | [X1; infinity-mugging-link] Re-read Bostrom p. 445: the mugger explicitly excludes infinite values. The dek falsely identified the infinity-driven ranking failure with this finite-payoff problem. Fixed the markdown dek, HTML description and JSON-LD description; one shared dated correction covers X1 and K1.
- MINOR | What Is Pascal's Wager? (The First Decision Matrix - Watch Infinity Break It) | https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [X2; title-first-matrix] Re-read the Hacking scan, contents, PDF page 6: the qualified description is the first well-understood contribution to decision theory. That does not establish priority for a decision matrix. All three title copies now say An Early Decision-Theory Argument. MINOR wording overreach, with no demonstrated historical counterexample; no page correction line.
- WRONG | Rival column added. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [X3; rival-column] Re-read and executed the actual pinned inline script. The click changes aria-pressed and the visibility of the objection paragraph; the matrix has only reward-exists and reward-absent columns. Fixed the button and status wording; added a dated correction.
- WRONG | Diderot's 1746 challenge was brief and blunt (in the standard English rendering) | https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques | [X4; diderot-date] Re-read the Assézat-Tourneux edition: the Imam sentence is in Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX. Its editorial introduction gives publication in 1770; LIX of the earlier Pensées concerns Abbadie and Huet. Corrected the work attribution and stated 1770 as publication according to this edition, without assigning a composition date. One shared dated correction covers X4, X5, K3 and K5.
- WRONG | Diderot, Pensées philosophiques LIX, 1746. | https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques | [X5; citation-diderot] Re-read Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, and its editorial introduction, which gives publication in 1770. The earlier Pensées, LIX, is about Abbadie and Huet. Corrected the page citation, research note and verifier markers. The new date is edition-attributed publication, not composition; the English quotation is unchanged. Shares the dated correction for X4, X5, K3 and K5.
- WRONG | Change any input and both outputs move. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [X6; inputs-move-both] Re-read and executed the pinned script: at G=3 and S=1, p=50% gives EV=+1 and p*=25%; p=60% gives EV=+1.4 and p*=25%. Changing G to 4 gives p*=20%. The formula S/(G+S) contains no p. Fixed the instruction to state the dependencies; added a dated correction.
- MINOR | (added) G = 1,000,000,000,000,000; p* = 0% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html (line 192) | [X7; added-cap-zero] Re-read and executed the pinned script at cap=15: its formatter prints 0%, although 100/(10^15+1) is about 9.99999999999999e-14 percent and positive. The arithmetic was correct. A scientific-notation fallback now displays 1.000000e-13% when a positive percentage would round to zero. MINOR display precision fix; no page correction line.
- WRONG | The twist: infinity opens a fault in ordinary expected-value ranking, the fault later dramatized by Pascal's mugging and still debated in decision theory. | https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf | [K1; infinity-mugging-link] Re-read Bostrom p. 445: the mugger explicitly excludes infinite values. The dek falsely identified the infinity-driven ranking failure with this finite-payoff problem. Fixed the markdown dek, HTML description and JSON-LD description; one shared dated correction covers X1 and K1.
- MINOR | What Is Pascal's Wager? (The First Decision Matrix - Watch Infinity Break It) | https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [K2; title-first-matrix] Re-read the Hacking scan, contents, PDF page 6: the qualified description is the first well-understood contribution to decision theory. That does not establish priority for a decision matrix. All three title copies now say An Early Decision-Theory Argument. MINOR wording overreach, with no demonstrated historical counterexample; no page correction line.
- WRONG | Diderot's 1746 challenge was brief and blunt (in the standard English rendering) | https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques | [K3; diderot-date] Re-read the Assézat-Tourneux edition: the Imam sentence is in Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX. Its editorial introduction gives publication in 1770; LIX of the earlier Pensées concerns Abbadie and Huet. Corrected the work attribution and stated 1770 as publication according to this edition, without assigning a composition date. One shared dated correction covers X4, X5, K3 and K5.
- CONFIRMED | a calibrated historical description, not a claim that Pascal invented decision theory or probability. | https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf; https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf; git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [K4; historical-calibration] REJECTED with evidence: the page expressly introduces Hacking 1975 and qualifies that particular quotation. Re-read the 1975 contents phrase and Hacking 1972 reprint p. 17 and p. 23 note 2. The 1972 work makes the stronger invention claim, but that separate assertion does not falsify the limited description of the quoted 1975 phrase. This is the triage reason and agrees with the Codex checker; leave the sentence and quotation unchanged.
- WRONG | Diderot, Pensées philosophiques LIX, 1746. | https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques | [K5; citation-diderot] Re-read Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, and its editorial introduction, which gives publication in 1770. The earlier Pensées, LIX, is about Abbadie and Huet. Corrected the page citation, research note and verifier markers. The new date is edition-attributed publication, not composition; the English quotation is unchanged. Shares the dated correction for X4, X5, K3 and K5.
- CONFIRMED | it is the first well-understood decision-under-uncertainty argument (Hacking 1975) | https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [first-argument] Retained from N2-codex.md: Inspected Hacking contents, PDF p. 6: "the first well-understood contribution to decision theory." The attribution retains the qualification.
- CONFIRMED | Pascal ran finite versions first, two lives, three lives | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [finite-versions] Retained from N2-codex.md: Fragment 233 says "two lives, instead of one" and then "if there were three lives to gain", before this passage moves to eternity.
- CONFIRMED | at finite stakes its expected-value logic is the same calculation used in risk decisions. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [finite-risk-calculation] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP section 1 defines expectation by multiplying state utilities by probabilities and adding. Applied independently to the displayed finite matrix, this gives pG-(1-p)S.
- CONFIRMED | an early, influential decision under uncertainty. | https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [early-influential] Retained from N2-codex.md: Hacking calls it "the first well-understood contribution to decision theory"; SEP section 8 describes its continuing influence. The modest historical description is supported.
- CONFIRMED | Pascal tries finite prizes before the infinite one. | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [finite-before-infinite] Retained from N2-codex.md: Fragment 233 proceeds within the life-prize argument from "two lives" to "three lives" to "an eternity of life and happiness". This does not imply infinity is absent from the fragment's earlier discussion.
- CONFIRMED | The finite arithmetic works. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [finite-arithmetic] Retained from N2-codex.md: Independently calculated pG-(1-p)S and solved zero expectation for p=S/(G+S). Default and finite example results agree with the JavaScript.
- CONFIRMED | Then one symbol enters the matrix and its power to rank strategies comes apart. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [ranking-comes-apart] Retained from N2-codex.md: Hajek 2003 p. 31: "Nothing in his argument favors wagering for God over all of these alternative strategies." Read the mixed-strategy construction, not just the excerpt.
- CONFIRMED | At even odds: one half times 3 minus one half times 1 equals +1. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-arithmetic] Retained from N2-codex.md: Independent arithmetic: 1.5-0.5=1. The model defines G as the gain in its reward state.
- CONFIRMED | In Pascal's finite sequence, this is the point where he says you would have to play. | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [pascal-have-to-play] Retained from N2-codex.md: Fragment 233 says "if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play". This supports the short historical phrase attached to the model's three-life case.
- CONFIRMED | 1 in 1,000,000,000 | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [one-in-billion] Retained from N2-codex.md: At e=9, q=10^-9=1/1,000,000,000. The label and code agree.
- CONFIRMED | Under this simple infinite-utility matrix, any positive q inherits infinite expectation. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [positive-mixed-infinite] Retained from N2-codex.md: Hajek p. 31 explicitly constructs coin, die, lottery, and still less likely mixed strategies, all with maximal infinite expectation. Assumptions p>0 and finite losses match the displayed model.
- CONFIRMED | So pure wagering and even a fantastically unlikely route to wagering both read infinity. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [pure-and-mixed-tie] Retained from N2-codex.md: Hajek p. 31 supports both pure and arbitrarily unlikely positive-path strategies having infinite expectation.
- CONFIRMED | Standard expected utility no longer orders them. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [no-order] Retained from N2-codex.md: Hajek p. 31 says the argument does not favor the pure wager over the alternatives. In context "orders" means distinguishes them by a strict preference, not absence of a weak ordering with ties.
- CONFIRMED | Hájek's 2003 objection has replies | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [hajek-replies] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP section 5.4: "Monton 2011 defends Pascal’s Wager against this line of objection." The record's claim of replies is supported.
- CONFIRMED | the current SEP describes arguments that it is formal rather than substantive. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [formal-substantive] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP attributes "structural, but not substantive" to Jackson and Rogers (2019); "formal rather than substantive" is an accurate paraphrase, not a verbatim quotation.
- CONFIRMED | “An Imam could reason just as well this way.” | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [diderot-quotation] Retained from N2-codex.md: The English words match SEP section 5.1; the French original at Addition LIX reads "Un iman en peut dire tout autant que Pascal." The offline warning is terminal-period placement, not a changed quotation. The date is audited separately.
- CONFIRMED | Once incompatible rewards enter, the original two-state dominance claim needs further premises. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [many-gods-premises] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP explains that the God-does-not-exist column subdivides into other theistic hypotheses. That supports the need for more premises when incompatible rewards enter.
- CONFIRMED | This many-gods objection also has published replies | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [many-gods-replies] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP section 5.1 describes probability-based tie-breaking replies and cites their proponents. Read together with section 5.4, this confirms published replies exist.
- CONFIRMED | The fragment is Infini-rien, numbered Lafuma 418, Sellier 680, and Brunschvicg 233. | https://www.penseesdepascal.fr/II/II1-moderne.php; https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf | [fragment-numbering] Retained from N2-codex.md: The French scholarly edition labels "Infini rien" and gives the concordance. Hacking's reprint p. 23 note 1 independently identifies Lafuma 418 and Brunschvicg 233. Sellier 680 includes the broader Discours de la Machine, so the record's grouped concordance needs that context.
- CONFIRMED | Pensées is a posthumous 1670 collection of notes, not Pascal's finished treatise. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/; https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf | [posthumous-notes] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP says "Pascal never finished the Pensées" and describes pinned notes. Its bibliography dates the collection 1670; the Hacking reprint p. 23 independently confirms the first edition in 1670.
- CONFIRMED | Hacking 1972 finds three arguments in the passage. | https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf | [hacking-three] Retained from N2-codex.md: Visually inspected the scan, reprint p. 17: "I show that Pascal briefly presents three distinct arguments, each with different premises."
- CONFIRMED | The Stanford Encyclopedia presents the nearby forms as superdominance, expectation, and generalized expectations. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [sep-taxonomy] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP contents and sections 2, 3, 4 carry these three headings. Its additional fourth wager does not contradict the page's restricted "nearby forms" wording.
- CONFIRMED | Hacking 1975 calls the wager “the first well-understood contribution to decision theory,” | https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [hacking-quotation] Retained from N2-codex.md: Visually inspected Hacking contents, PDF p. 6. The quoted words match. The record puts a comma inside its quote field where the source sentence has a period; that produces the offline warning without a lexical misquotation.
- CONFIRMED | Turn infinity off and the threshold is ordinary algebra: p* = S / (G + S). | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [finite-threshold] Retained from N2-codex.md: pG-(1-p)S=p(G+S)-S; setting it to zero gives p*=S/(G+S), with G+S positive throughout the available finite controls.
- CONFIRMED | With one life staked, gains of one, two, and three lives at even odds produce expected values of 0, +0.5, and +1. | git show 67088387e0:research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs | [finite-three-values] Retained from N2-codex.md: For p=1/2 and S=1, (G-1)/2 at G=1,2,3 gives 0, 0.5, 1. Reproduced in the UI and the pinned verifier.
- CONFIRMED | That is the finite sequence in the fragment. | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [finite-sequence-original] Retained from N2-codex.md: Fragment 233 expressly uses the two- and three-life cases and later discusses equal stakes at equal risks: "if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even". The one-life zero-EV baseline is the page's explicit algebraic extension, not another verbatim quotation.
- CONFIRMED | Infinity is a limit here, not a large number: as finite G grows, the threshold approaches zero but never reaches it. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [finite-limit] Retained from N2-codex.md: For the preceding sentence's fixed one-life stake, p*=1/(G+1)>0 for every finite positive G and tends to zero. The cap's last rounded display is a separate added finding.
- CONFIRMED | Bostrom's 2009 Pascal's mugging asks how expected-value reasoning should react when an implausible claim is paired with a sufficiently vast finite payoff. | https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf | [bostrom-problem] Retained from N2-codex.md: Bostrom p. 444 offers "any finite amount of Utility" against a very low probability; the title and 2009 publication are on p. 443.
- CONFIRMED | no matter how tiny a positive probability you choose, a large enough finite prize can dominate. | https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf | [large-finite-prize] Retained from N2-codex.md: For fixed p>0 and finite S, choosing G>(1-p)S/p makes EV positive. Bostrom pp. 444-445 constructs just such a finite offer. The page does not claim p must stay fixed as real promises change.
- CONFIRMED | Proposed solutions exist and remain debated. | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-022-00624-9 | [mugging-solutions] Retained from N2-codex.md: Manually fetched the full Springer article after the automated tool returned too little text. Note 10 discusses Monton 2019 and alternative developments of DEUT; the article itself proposes and evaluates decision-theoretic responses.
- CONFIRMED | Insurance uses expected loss in pricing and risk analysis, but buying insurance is not explained by expected value alone. | https://public.econ.duke.edu/~fsloan/156/lecture5/Lec5 | [insurance-expected-loss] Retained from N2-codex.md: Duke lecture states "Expected loss=actuarial value of loss" and then develops utility-based insurance demand. The excerpt alone covers expected loss; the full lecture supports the second clause.
- CONFIRMED | Risk aversion, premiums, exclusions, solvency, regulation, and the declining marginal value of money matter. | https://public.econ.duke.edu/~fsloan/156/lecture5/Lec5; https://content.naic.org/consumer/auto-insurance.htm; https://content.naic.org/glossary-insurance-terms | [insurance-caveats] Retained from N2-codex.md: The Duke lecture explicitly covers premiums, risk aversion, and decreasing marginal utility. Exclusions and solvency/regulation are supported by the separate NAIC entries 110 and 111. One excerpt alone does not cover the whole list.
- CONFIRMED | The calculation is p x covered loss - premium. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [insurance-equation] Retained from N2-codex.md: Code uses covered=L*coverage and benefit=p*covered-premium. This agrees with the equation, with "covered loss" interpreted as the covered portion of the loss.
- CONFIRMED | EV = pG - (1-p)S p* = S/(G+S) finite mixed EV = q x EV if G is infinite and p,q are positive: pG = q(pG) = infinity | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [displayed-equations] Retained from N2-codex.md: The finite expectation, zero-EV threshold, q-scaled mixture with zero baseline, and positive-infinity convention all follow algebraically. Read updateMix as well as the record's finite update excerpt.
- CONFIRMED | Under the displayed extended-real convention, positive probability times positive infinity is infinity, so the simple matrix ties every positive-path strategy. | git show 67088387e0:research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs | [extended-real-convention] Retained from N2-codex.md: For positive p,q and finite other payoffs, multiplication in the extended nonnegative reals gives p*infinity=q*(p*infinity)=infinity. Hajek p. 31 supplies the decision-theoretic application.
- CONFIRMED | the probability of the reward, the utility of salvation, whether utility may be infinite, whether belief can be chosen, the cost S, the available religions, and the completeness of the state space. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [disputed-assumptions] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read SEP sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 7: decision table, positive probability, expected-utility maximization, and the ability to choose belief are all discussed. The short excerpt alone does not enumerate them all.
- CONFIRMED | Pascal says the this-life loss is nothing | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [pascal-no-loss] Retained from N2-codex.md: Fragment 233: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
- CONFIRMED | Mixed-strategy and many-gods objections have published replies. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [both-objections-replies] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP section 5.4 describes a reformulation and says "This also provides a response to the many Gods objection." Together with Monton and section 5.1, this supports both groups of replies.
- CONFIRMED | Pascal, Pensées, Infini-rien, Lafuma 418 / Sellier 680 / Brunschvicg 233, posthumous 1670. | https://www.penseesdepascal.fr/II/II1-moderne.php; https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [citation-pascal] Retained from N2-codex.md: Combined the scholarly French concordance with Hacking reprint p. 23, note 1, and SEP's account of the unfinished notes. The concordance excerpt alone does not establish 1670 or posthumous publication.
- CONFIRMED | Source for the finite life examples and the wager passage. | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [pascal-source-role] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read fragment 233 in full around the wager and finite life examples. The source contains those examples and the wager passage.
- CONFIRMED | Alan Hájek, “Pascal's Wager,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published 1998 | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [citation-sep] Retained from N2-codex.md: SEP header: "First published Sat May 2, 1998; substantive revision Sun Sep 11, 2022"; footer names Alan Hajek. The record has the correct author, title, and first-publication year.
- CONFIRMED | Source for the matrix, taxonomy, objections, and state of debate. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [sep-source-role] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read the SEP matrix, sections 2-4, and objection/reply discussions. They support the source-role description.
- CONFIRMED | Ian Hacking, “The Logic of Pascal's Wager,” American Philosophical Quarterly 9(2), 1972, 186-192; and The Emergence of Probability, 1975. | https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [citation-hacking] Retained from N2-codex.md: The primary Hacking reprint p. 17 footer gives American Philosophical Quarterly 9, 2 (1972), pp. 186-92. SEP bibliography also gives The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, 1975.
- CONFIRMED | Source for the three-argument reading and calibrated historical claim. | https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf; https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf | [hacking-source-role] Retained from N2-codex.md: The Hacking 1972 scan p. 17 supplies "three distinct arguments"; the separate Hacking 1975 contents supplies the historical phrase. Both are needed; the single excerpt is only the first half.
- CONFIRMED | Alan Hájek, “Waging War on Pascal's Wager,” Philosophical Review 112(1), 2003, 27-56. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [citation-hajek] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read scanned article first page and final p. 56; title, author, volume 112, issue 1, January 2003, pages 27-56 agree. The source checker reports DOI MATCH for 10.1215/00318108-112-1-27.
- CONFIRMED | Source for the mixed-strategy objection. | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [hajek-source-role] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read Hajek 2003 section 3.1, p. 31, with its explicit mixed strategies and infinite expectations. The cited source has the stated role.
- CONFIRMED | Source for the Imam challenge. | https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques | [diderot-source-role] Retained from N2-codex.md: The Addition's LIX contains "Un iman en peut dire tout autant que Pascal." That source role is correct independently of the wrong date and shortened work title elsewhere.
- CONFIRMED | Nick Bostrom, “Pascal's Mugging,” Analysis 69(3), 2009, 443-445. | https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf | [citation-bostrom] Retained from N2-codex.md: Primary article p. 443 identifies Nick Bostrom, Analysis Vol 69, Number 3, July 2009, pp. 443-445, DOI 10.1093/analys/anp062. The source checker also reports DOI MATCH.
- CONFIRMED | Both instruments put an infinite expectation on the bench and reveal that ordinary expected-value ranking needs more structure. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/st-petersburg-paradox.md | [related-petersburg] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read the linked layer's pinned frontmatter: its payoff expectation is "$1 + $1 + $1 + … = infinity". That and this page's infinite utility support the comparison.
- CONFIRMED | St. Petersburg gets infinity from an unbounded payoff distribution; Pascal gets it from an infinite utility in one outcome. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/st-petersburg-paradox.md | [related-petersburg-distinction] Retained from N2-codex.md: The linked layer's unbounded coin payoff 2^k gives sum 1; this page has an individual outcome assigned infinite utility. These are distinct routes to infinite expectation.
- CONFIRMED | Both begin with seductive expected-value arithmetic that is locally valid, then expose the assumption that makes the ranking fail. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/the-number-you-made-up.md | [related-envelopes] Retained from N2-codex.md: Read the two-envelope layer: it identifies the conditional-odds/prior assumption behind its 25% switching calculation. This is the limited structural comparison made here.
- CONFIRMED | Here it is arithmetic with infinite utility; there it is an improper prior masquerading as equal conditional odds. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/the-number-you-made-up.md | [related-improper-prior] Retained from N2-codex.md: The linked layer explicitly describes an "improper uniform prior" in the always-switch argument. This page's failure to distinguish positive-path strategies comes from infinite utility.
- CONFIRMED | Two decision-under-uncertainty problems made operable as rules rather than slogans. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/look-then-leap.md | [related-secretary-description] Retained from N2-codex.md: The secretary layer supplies a cutoff rule and live instruments; this page supplies a matrix with adjustable probabilities and utilities. Both descriptions match their pinned pages.
- CONFIRMED | The secretary problem yields a stable finite optimum; Pascal's matrix shows why replacing a finite prize with infinity can erase the ordering among strategies. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/look-then-leap.md | [related-secretary-optimum] Retained from N2-codex.md: The secretary layer gives a finite-n win probability and an optimizing cutoff. The finite action set has a finite maximum; no uniqueness for every n is claimed here. The infinity comparison was independently checked.
- CONFIRMED | Both are about what to do when the reasoning runs out and a choice still has to be made. | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/every-expert-board-that-forces-a-guess.md | [related-expert-board] Retained from N2-codex.md: The linked Minesweeper layer describes full deductions followed by guesses with computed probabilities; this page analyzes choice when the religious state is uncertain. The thematic factual comparison is supported.
- CONFIRMED | its arithmetic is valid | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm | [arithmetic-valid] Retained from N2-codex.md: Independently recalculated the finite arithmetic in the clause's stated context. This is not an assertion that every philosophical inference in the infinite wager is valid.
- CONFIRMED | Risk aversion, premiums, exclusions, solvency, regulation, and the declining marginal value of money matter. | https://content.naic.org/consumer/auto-insurance.htm; https://public.econ.duke.edu/~fsloan/156/lecture5/Lec5; https://content.naic.org/glossary-insurance-terms | [insurance-policy-exclusions] Retained from N2-codex.md: Manually fetched NAIC after automated HTTP 403. It says "exclusions or limitations" in its policy explanation. This supplies that part of the shared list; Duke and the other NAIC entry cover the other parts.
- CONFIRMED | Risk aversion, premiums, exclusions, solvency, regulation, and the declining marginal value of money matter. | https://content.naic.org/glossary-insurance-terms; https://public.econ.duke.edu/~fsloan/156/lecture5/Lec5; https://content.naic.org/consumer/auto-insurance.htm | [insurance-solvency-regulation] Retained from N2-codex.md: Manually fetched NAIC after automated HTTP 403. Its IRIS definition calls it "a baseline solvency screening system" for NAIC and state insurance regulators. Together with entries 54 and 110, the whole list is supported.
- CONFIRMED | Pensées is a posthumous 1670 collection of notes, not Pascal's finished treatise. | https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ | [pascal-publication-year] Retained from N2-codex.md: Visually inspected reprint p. 23 note 1: "the first edition, édition de Port Royal, was in 1670." SEP supplies the unfinished/posthumous context; this excerpt alone supplies only the edition date.
- CONFIRMED | The Pascal wording varies by translation | https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm; https://studylib.net/doc/27808209/the-elements-of-philosophy | [translation-wording] Retained from N2-codex.md: Compared Trotter's "if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one" with Krailsheimer's "if you stood to win only two lives for one". The record's French comparison alone did not establish differences between English translations.
- CONFIRMED | (added) <meta property="og:image:width" content="1200" /> <meta property="og:image:height" content="630" /> | https://artwaste.land/og/pascals-wager-decision-theory.png | [added-og-dimensions] Retained from N2-codex.md: Downloaded HTTP 200 PNG; the IHDR width and height are exactly 1200 and 630. Both metadata assertions were omitted from the source record.
- CONFIRMED | The live bench makes the payoff matrix operable: drag gain and probability, recompute the fragment's expectations, then flip the infinity switch and watch the break-even probability collapse toward zero while every strategy with a positive path to belief ties at infinity. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [metadata-live-bench] Retained from N2-claude.md: gain, probability and stake sliders recompute EV and p*; the infinity button sets EV to infinity and shows the mixed-strategy panel reading "mixed EV = infinity".
- CONFIRMED | Pascal's wager read as the decision-under-uncertainty argument it was, with its payoff matrix put on a bench you can operate. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [plain-description] Retained from N2-claude.md: the bench has the 2x2 matrix and live sliders.
- CONFIRMED | Drag the gain and the probability to recompute the expected values, then flip the infinity switch and watch the break-even probability collapse toward zero while every strategy with a positive path to belief ties at infinity. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [plain-controls] Retained from N2-claude.md: same behaviour as metadata-live-bench.
- CONFIRMED | Operate Pascal's finite wager, switch on infinity, and watch the decision matrix lose its ranking. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [og-description] Retained from N2-claude.md: line 17 og:description; the behaviour it describes is in the script.
- CONFIRMED | Drag Pascal's finite stakes, then switch on infinity and see ordinary expected value stop ranking the choices. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [twitter-description] Retained from N2-claude.md: line 25 twitter:description; matches the script.
- CONFIRMED | "datePublished":"2026-07-23" | git show 67088387e0:src/content/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory.md | [published-date] Retained from N2-claude.md: frontmatter "date: 2026-07-23"; first commits of the page are 2026-07-23 (git log 73e27dd56e2, 69bb3c72b53).
- CONFIRMED | "dateModified":"2026-07-23" | git log 67088387e0 -- public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [modified-date] Retained from N2-claude.md: the visible text of 73e27dd56e2 (2026-07-23) and the pin differ only in the generated check placard, footer and nearby box; no claim text changed after 23 July. Confirmed for the pinned page; this revision moves dateModified to 2026-10-14 with the corrections, without an Updated line.
- CONFIRMED | The immersive page and its live decision matrix are at the `href` above. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [md-location] Retained from N2-claude.md: href /strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/ serves this page (live: HTTP 200, text identical to the pin).
- CONFIRMED | Two by two payoff matrix | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [matrix-label] Retained from N2-claude.md: aria-label="Two by two payoff matrix".
- CONFIRMED | EV(wager) = +1 life; break-even p* = 25% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-expected-value] Retained from N2-claude.md: initial readout "EV(wager) = +1 life; break-even p* = 25%".
- CONFIRMED | Chance the mixed strategy leads to wagering | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-mix-odds] Retained from N2-claude.md: label of the mix slider.
- CONFIRMED | q = 0.000000001; mixed EV = infinity | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [mixed-readout] Retained from N2-claude.md: with the infinity switch on (the only state in which the panel is shown) it reads "q = 0.000000001; mixed EV = infinity".
- CONFIRMED | the button displays an objection, not a verdict. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [rival-button-purpose] Retained from N2-claude.md: the button only shows text; no score changes.
- CONFIRMED | G = 1,000,000; p* = 0.0000999999% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [cap-display] Retained from N2-claude.md: 1/(10^6+1) x 100 = 0.0000999999%; readout "G = 1,000,000; p* = 0.0000999999%".
- CONFIRMED | This slider does not solve that problem. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [slider-limits] Retained from N2-claude.md: the cap slider only recomputes S/(G+S); no decision rule is offered.
- CONFIRMED | This abstract example is deliberately not a real quote. | git show 67088387e0:research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/README.md | [abstract-insurance] Retained from N2-claude.md: "The insurance panel is an abstract expected-loss illustration, not a claim about any real policy."
- CONFIRMED | Expected loss = $1,000; expected net benefit of policy = +$100 | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [insurance-default-result] Retained from N2-claude.md: 0.01 x 100,000 = 1,000; 1,000 - 900 = +100; readout matches.
- CONFIRMED | All four inputs are free choices. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [free-insurance-inputs] Retained from N2-claude.md: four sliders, no fixed rate.
- CONFIRMED | It omits risk preference and every policy detail, so it demonstrates the finite arithmetic only. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [insurance-omissions] Retained from N2-claude.md: no utility or policy term in updateIns.
- CONFIRMED | Live now: p = 0.5, G = 3, S = 1. EV = 0.5 x 3 - 0.5 x 1 = +1; p* = 1 / (3 + 1) = 0.25. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [live-initial-check] Retained from N2-claude.md: check-copy reads exactly "Live now: p = 0.5, G = 3, S = 1. EV = 0.5 x 3 - 0.5 x 1 = +1; p* = 1 / (3 + 1) = 0.25."
- CONFIRMED | the finite expected values and break-even threshold follow from the selected inputs. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [bench-proof] Retained from N2-claude.md: outputs are computed from the inputs.
- CONFIRMED | the slider does not assume that. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [cost-not-assumed-zero] Retained from N2-claude.md: stake slider default 1, range 0 to 5.
- CONFIRMED | The Pascal wording varies by translation, so only the short decision phrases needed here are paraphrased. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [paraphrase-policy] Retained from N2-claude.md: the page quotes no Pascal sentence beyond short phrases ("you would have to play"); Trotter and the French differ in wording (translation-wording).
- CONFIRMED | This page takes no position on whether God exists or whether anyone should wager. It tests a decision rule. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [page-position] Retained from N2-claude.md: nothing on the page argues for or against belief.
- CONFIRMED | This layer's check reads the bytes this page serves and asserts against them. | git show 67088387e0:research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs | [verifier-reads-page] Retained from N2-claude.md: it reads public/strata/.../index.html and checks 13 source markers and page features against it; run at the pin: 34 passed, 0 failed, exit 0. Its numeric checks recompute from constants, not from the page text. This pass changes the Diderot markers; the current verifier result is recorded below.
- CONFIRMED | It is reading what you are reading. | git show 67088387e0:research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs | [reading-same-page] Retained from N2-claude.md: it reads the shipped HTML; the live page (curl, HTTP 200) has the same visible text as the pinned file.
- CONFIRMED | EV(wager) = infinity; break-even p* tends to 0 for any positive p | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [infinite-status] Retained from N2-claude.md: readout with the switch on.
- CONFIRMED | The extended-real rule is p x infinity = infinity when p is positive. The matrix now cannot distinguish pure wagering from any mixed strategy with a positive path to it. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [infinite-explanation] Retained from N2-claude.md: anchor text with the switch on; matches Hajek p. 31.
- CONFIRMED | The result is recomputed from pG - (1-p)S. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [recomputation] Retained from N2-claude.md: shown for any non-default input.
- CONFIRMED | For positive p, EV = infinity and the finite break-even threshold tends to zero. | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [infinite-check-status] Retained from N2-claude.md: check-copy with the switch on.
- CONFIRMED | Probability p 50% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-probability] Retained from N2-claude.md: prob value="50".
- CONFIRMED | Gain G 3 lives | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-gain] Retained from N2-claude.md: gain value="3".
- CONFIRMED | This-life cost S 1 life | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-stake] Retained from N2-claude.md: stake value="1".
- CONFIRMED | wager +3gain -1cost do not wager 0baseline 0baseline | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [payoff-cells] Retained from N2-claude.md: wg "+3", wl "-1"; the do-not-wager row is static 0.
- CONFIRMED | Finite promised gain, 10 to the power 6 | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-cap-power] Retained from N2-claude.md: cap value="6".
- CONFIRMED | Loss probability 1% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-loss-probability] Retained from N2-claude.md: risk value="1".
- CONFIRMED | Covered loss $100,000 | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-covered-loss] Retained from N2-claude.md: loss value="100000".
- CONFIRMED | Premium $900 | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-premium] Retained from N2-claude.md: premium value="900".
- CONFIRMED | Coverage 100% | git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html | [initial-coverage] Retained from N2-claude.md: cover value="100".
- CONFIRMED | (added) "Hájek's 2003 objection" (the mixed-strategy objection credited to Hájek 2003) | https://pdf.stafforini.com/hajek-2003-waging-war-pascal.pdf | [added-hajek-attribution] Retained from N2-claude.md: Hájek 2003 p. 27 states it, "devel- oping arguments byJeffrey (1983) and Duff (1986)" (scan text); SEP 5.4: "Duff 1986 and Hájek 2003 argue that the argument is in fact invalid." Fair, as Hajek's version.

## Findings

- [fixed] X1: Corrected the infinity/mugging conflation in the markdown dek, HTML meta description and JSON-LD description. Bostrom uses finite payoffs. Shared dated correction with K1.
- [fixed] X2: Replaced The First Decision Matrix with An Early Decision-Theory Argument in seoTitle, HTML title and JSON-LD name. MINOR, no dated page line.
- [fixed] X3: Replaced Add a rival god with Show the many-gods objection and Rival column added with Many-gods objection shown. The control only reveals text. Dated correction added.
- [fixed] X4: Replaced the 1746 attribution in the rival paragraph with the later Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX. The citation attributes publication in 1770 to the Assézat-Tourneux edition. Shared dated correction with X5, K3 and K5.
- [fixed] X5: Corrected the Diderot citation in HTML and the research README to the Addition, LIX, with edition-attributed publication in 1770, and replaced the verifier's 1746 marker with the correct title and 1770. Shared dated correction with X4, K3 and K5.
- [fixed] X6: Replaced the assertion that every input moves both outputs with instructions to recalculate and the actual dependency of the threshold on gain and stake. Dated correction added.
- [fixed] X7: Added scientific notation only when the finite-cap percentage is positive but its decimal display rounds to zero. The cap=15 output is now 1.000000e-13%; the default stays 0.0000999999%. MINOR, no dated page line.
- [fixed] K1: Same infinity/mugging error as X1, corrected in every active dek and description copy. Preserved the directing triage's WRONG verdict despite the original Claude MINOR rating; shares X1's dated correction.
- [fixed] K2: Same title overreach as X2, corrected in all three title copies to An Early Decision-Theory Argument. MINOR, no dated page line.
- [fixed] K3: Same Diderot work/date error as X4: the challenge now points to the later Addition, LIX, and the citation gives its edition-attributed 1770 publication. Shared dated correction.
- [fixed] K5: Same Diderot citation error as X5: corrected HTML, research note and verifier markers. Retained the English quotation and made no composition-date claim. Shared dated correction.

## Edits

Line numbers below refer to the revised files. The HTML is authored directly; no layer generator or build script was found in the layer research directory or in the search for scripts referencing this layer. The markdown frontmatter authors its own dek and SEO title. Existing audit evidence was left intact.

| File:line | Before | After |
| --- | --- | --- |
| src/content/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory.md:4; public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:7 and :27 | The twist: infinity opens a fault in ordinary expected-value ranking, the fault later dramatized by Pascal's mugging and still debated in decision theory. | The twist: infinity opens a fault in ordinary expected-value ranking. Pascal's mugging poses a related problem with finite payoffs, still debated in decision theory. |
| src/content/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory.md:6; public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:6 and :27 | The First Decision Matrix | An Early Decision-Theory Argument |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:27 | dateModified: 2026-07-23 | dateModified: 2026-10-14 |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:49 | Add a rival god | Show the many-gods objection |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:64 | Rival column added. | Many-gods objection shown. |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:64 | Diderot's 1746 challenge was | Diderot's challenge in the later Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, was |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:109 | Diderot, Pensées philosophiques LIX, 1746. | Diderot, Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, published in 1770 according to the Assézat-Tourneux edition. The work title now links to the edition. |
| research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/README.md:18 | Denis Diderot, Pensées philosophiques, LIX, 1746. | Denis Diderot, Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, published in 1770 according to the Assézat-Tourneux edition. The work title now links to the edition. |
| research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs:41 | Required marker 1746 | Required markers Addition aux Pensées philosophiques and 1770 |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:194 | Change any input and both outputs move. | Change any input to recalculate. The break-even threshold depends on gain and stake, not probability. |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:199 | The cap percentage always used num(be*100,12), giving 0% at cap=15. | The percentage keeps that decimal formatting unless it is positive and would display as zero; that case uses percent.toExponential(6), giving 1.000000e-13%. |
| public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html:114; src/content/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory.md:22 | No Corrections note or markdown correction lines | Four dated lines below, in an HTML Corrections section above the check placard and mirrored at the end of the markdown body |
| assay/records/pascals-wager-decision-theory.md:1 | No record | This record, with the required date and byline, 113 claim lines and 11 fixed findings, plus evidence, edit and verification details |

## Dated lines

The HTML uses the following exact visible lines. The markdown mirrors them with the prefix `*Corrected 2026-10-14:*`. No line was added for either distinct MINOR fix. No triage item requires an Updated line; moving JSON-LD dateModified is covered by the corrections.

Corrected 2026-10-14: The dek linked the infinity-driven ranking failure to Pascal's mugging. Bostrom's mugging uses finite payoffs and poses a related problem; found by the assay line, 2026-10-14.

Corrected 2026-10-14: The rival-god control said "Rival column added." It shows the many-gods objection without adding a matrix column; found by the assay line, 2026-10-14.

Corrected 2026-10-14: The page attributed Diderot's Imam challenge to Pensées philosophiques (1746), LIX. It is in Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, LIX, whose publication the Assézat-Tourneux edition dates to 1770; found by the assay line, 2026-10-14.

Corrected 2026-10-14: The calculator said changing any input moved both outputs. With finite gain, changing probability changes expected value, while the break-even threshold depends only on gain and stake; found by the assay line, 2026-10-14.

## Evidence re-read by the fixer

- X1 and K1: [Bostrom, Pascal's Mugging](https://nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf), p. 445, explicitly excludes infinite values from the offer.
- X2 and K2: [Hacking, The Emergence of Probability](https://www.andreasaltelli.eu/file/repository/Jan_Hacking_Emergence_Probability.pdf), scanned contents, PDF page 6. The stated priority is qualified by well-understood and concerns a contribution to decision theory.
- X4, X5, K3 and K5: [Addition aux Pensées philosophiques](https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Addition_aux_Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques), introductory editorial note and LIX; compared with [Pensées, LIX](https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es_philosophiques/Pens%C3%A9es). The replacement year 1770 comes from the editorial publication statement, not an inference about composition.
- X3, X6 and X7: the actual inline script at `git show 67088387e0:public/strata/pascals-wager-decision-theory/index.html`, executed in a Node VM with a minimal DOM. The replacement cap display comes from the existing formula, 100/(10^15+1), approximately 9.99999999999999e-14 percent, rounded to scientific notation.
- K4: the page's paragraph at HTML line 67; the 1975 contents phrase above; and [Hacking 1972 in the publisher's preview](https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781474465908_A49299692/preview-9781474465908_A49299692.pdf), reprint p. 17 and p. 23 note 2. The stronger 1972 invention claim does not change the scope of the page's explicit reference to the 1975 phrase.

## Commands and results

- `git rev-parse HEAD`: 67088387e0bbfc87a4e5ca8c7621abecab349fa5. Read-only `git show`, `git status --short`, and `git diff --unified=0` located and reviewed the layer changes. Scoped `rg`, `rg --files`, `sed`, `cat`, `nl`, and Python reads inspected triage, checker records, source text, references and authoring paths; no applicable AGENTS.md was found. The first file search was unnecessarily broad and was stopped; it made no writes.
- Web opens and finds re-read Bostrom, both Diderot texts and SEP. The Hacking 1975 web screenshot returned no inspectable image, and the publisher-preview web open and alternate screenshot call failed, so source inspection used bounded PDF downloads.
- `curl --fail --location --silent --show-error --max-time 45 --max-filesize 10000000 ...`: the first publisher-preview request was refused for exceeding the selected 10 MB limit; subsequent `pdfinfo` and `pdftotext` calls had no file to read. HEAD requests then gave 28,644,692 bytes for the publisher preview and 9,873,172 bytes for the 1975 scan. Retried with respective 40 MB and 20 MB limits and a 55-second timeout; both downloads succeeded. Combined retained PDF download size was 38,517,864 bytes, below the user's limits.
- `pdftotext -f 24 -l 24 -layout ...`: the preview had no text layer on that page. `pdfimages -list` inspected the needed pages; `pdfimages -ccitt` extracted their original compressed streams. A short Python script wrapped those bytes in TIFF headers and asserted that the compressed bytes were unchanged. No image was rendered or re-encoded. `tesseract ... stdout` read the 1975 contents; `tesseract ... stdout --psm 1` read the 1972 pages with orientation detection after the default OCR read their stored orientation incorrectly. The extracted source pages and bulk PDFs were deleted after use.
- Python scripts applied exact-count-checked replacements to the four layer files and created this record from the triage and the two checker records. Only layer files and task-specific scratch files were written.
- `node research/pascals-wager-decision-theory/verify-pascals-wager-decision-theory.mjs`: exit 0, 35 passed, 0 failed.
- `node /tmp/pascals-wager-assay-check.mjs`: exit 0, five verification groups passed. Executed the actual revised inline script; checked probability and gain separately, both rival-button states, all 15 finite-cap settings, infinity and mixed-strategy behavior, insurance defaults, metadata equality, correction mirrors and placement, and removal of obsolete active copy. The first run's summary mistakenly printed six groups; the scratch-only summary was corrected to five and rerun.
- `node --input-type=module` importing `checkRecord` from `scripts/check-claims-pass.mjs`: exit 0, no errors, 113 checked, 102 confirmed, 11 wrong including MINOR, no open findings.
- `node scripts/check-claims-pass.mjs`: exit 1 solely for malformed Findings entries in `wisdom-of-crowds`. This layer was not named as a failure. The unrelated record was left untouched, as requested.
- Scoped `git diff --check`: exit 0, no whitespace errors.

## Not done

K4 was rejected with evidence and left unchanged. There are no unresolved fix items in this triage. The checkers' separate UNVERIFIABLE popular-reception and standard-English-rendering concerns were outside this work list and were not edited or relabeled as confirmed. The generated check placard still says Last verified 23 July 2026, when it was written; its shared regenerator was not run under the user's prohibition. No shared file, other layer, film, audio or site image was changed, and no site build or deployment was run.