The verdict is (real - mean)/sd of the null sample, so its reliability is set by
how well the SPREAD is pinned, not the mean. The relative error on an sd from n
draws is 1/sqrt(2(n-1)), and a sample that happens to come out narrow is exactly
what turns a model that does not fit into one that appears to.
Measured on the case that sits nearest the gate - an unrelated protein, 1.7-1.8
sigma against a threshold of 3 - the chance of it reading over the gate on a
different seed is 31% at n=3, 17% at n=5 and 6% at n=9.
Nine is affordable only because the replicates now run concurrently: the null
costs the slowest of them rather than their sum, and the slowest of nine is
barely above the slowest of five. Measured end to end on the accepted case, 5.98 s
against 6.46 s for five - inside the run-to-run scatter, so the four extra
replicates are free.
Verdicts unchanged, on more evidence: correct model ACCEPTED at +17.69 sigma
(+14.96 at n=5), an unrelated protein REJECTED at +1.70, the same model rotated
90 degrees REJECTED at -0.37. Both rejected runs still write .mtz, .cif, .hkl and
_unmerged.mtz byte-identical to a run with no model at all.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
8a0bbae3c4
