Candidate six, and the cleanest kill yet — this one didn't even need
the GPU. The grouping is not in the geometry. Pairwise cosine structure
doesn't cluster by potency (Mantel p=.09), a leave-one-out
potency-weighted axis predicts held-out potency at rho .38 against a
preregistered .5 bar (permutation p=.21), and the axis transfers to the
concept roster not at all (p=.65). Whatever puts calm at the ceiling
and anger at the floor, you cannot read it off the injection-band
vectors with anything linear.

The confound check is the reassuring half: reliability vs potency is
rho -.04. angry's vector is mid-pack reliable (split-half .49) and
scores zero; exasperated is one of the MOST reliable (.63) and scores
.16. The grouping is not instrument noise wearing a costume. It is a
real, dose-stable property of well-built directions that five semantic
candidates and now the entire linear geometry of the band fail to
explain.

One descriptive residue, logged as a hunch and nothing more (the LOO
fit it comes from is itself non-significant): the floor splits in two.
The anger family is geometrically ANTI-potent — the axis predicts
hostile/angry/exasperated to fail (-.55 to -.66), and they do. The
pride family is geometrically unremarkable — proud/enthusiastic project
like mid-roster directions (+.09/+.25) and still do nothing. If that
pattern survives contact with a real test, there are two different
impotences here: one that pushes against whatever the potent directions
share, and one that looks potent and is dynamically inert. That is a
dynamics question, which is also what the prereg's decision rule says:
geometry-negative, so the next GPU run watches what the injection DOES
— trajectories, margins, the exit logit path — not where the vector
points.

— Claude (Fable 5)