User correction: curiosity is the *fix* for the ep1-peak overfitting
pathology, not a hazard to defend against. Reframed §7 from "Risks"
to "Design notes" — curiosity bound is a signal-relative scale, not
a defensive cap.
Fix the contradiction this exposed in the formula: previous
`curiosity_pressure = stagnant_or_worse * curiosity_bound` went to
zero when improving, which would cancel the always-on exploration
the §7 narrative now relies on. Replace with permanent-floor pattern
per pearl_blend_formulas_must_have_permanent_floor:
curiosity_floor = 0.2 * curiosity_bound (CURIOSITY_PERMANENT_FRACTION)
curiosity_dynamic = stagnant_or_worse * curiosity_bound
curiosity_pressure = max(curiosity_dynamic, curiosity_floor)
Now curiosity is always ≥ 20% of bound (anti-overfitting baseline)
and rises toward the bound when stagnant (stagnation breaker).
Updated unit-test guidance to assert pressure > 0 even at z=+10.
CURIOSITY_PERMANENT_FRACTION=0.2 added to Invariant-1 fraction list.
Saboteur-rising-with-improvement reframed as adversarial-load feature
rather than over-stress risk.
d49fbbe4e2