This sounds really interesting, but the layer of AI slop makes me not want to read it, with dense inhuman statements such as:<p><pre><code> T3a proves that a correct channel is never disabled; it
does not prove that a command is issued when two
channels fail with wrong values on the same step (a 2–2
split at four active channels gives OutsideHypothesis,
no command). “Survives two failures” in this article
means only T3b, with its own assumption.
</code></pre>
And platitudes like<p><pre><code> Synchronisation matters here because comparing outputs
word for word only makes sense if the channels compute
the same frame at the same time; a channel a step
behind looks exactly like a failed one.
</code></pre>
At this point I can ask Claude myself to "tell me about the four computers in Buran".