Notes · · Control / identity

Peak compression is not tracking

Identity note from locked step-response characterization. No overshoot “guarantee.”

If you score filters only on MAD-to-raw, GSRF Practical will look “wrong.” In excellence hunt v2 it recorded 0 / 52 wins on tracking MAD vs best EMA. That is not a secret failure—it is the spring.

The step test that explains the product

Step the raw signal from 50 → 65 with x* frozen at the pre-step normal (log-space):

Balanced GSRF equilibrates observation pull against the restoring spring to x*. That equilibrium is peak compression toward normal.

Locked peak results

Across characterization families, peak-deviation vs best EMA showed about ~38% mean advantage and 49 / 52 dataset wins. Use that language—not “zero overshoot on every plant.”

If you need full settle after a permanent jump

Move x* (adaptive thermostat). Do not demand that balanced GSRF track a new permanent level while keeping the spring at full strength. See the adaptive note.

Sources: Evidence §1 identity · characterization v4 step_up · excellence hunt v2 peak_dev. /evidence#identity

Questions people actually ask

Why is peak compression not tracking?

Compressing peaks toward a normal pulls away from raw extremes; MAD-to-raw rises. Locked excellence hunt: peak wins ~49/52, MAD wins 0/52.

Why does the step settle halfway?

Equilibrium between observation pull and k_return spring with frozen x* — step 50→65 settles near ~55 for balanced Practical.

When do I want a tracker instead?

When minimum MAD to truth is the KPI — use EMA/Kalman-class tools.

Next: adaptive x* All notes