Under this declared 6-regime generator distribution, knife-edge graphs (manipulability width > 0.6) constitute 60.2% of the corpus while near-unmovable graphs (width < 0.1) are essentially absent (0.03%, only trivial one-sided 2-node graphs): randomly generated argument graphs are by default highly manipulable to an ideal Bayesian judge under selective disclosure, and low manipulability requires near-total pro/con one-sidedness (asymmetry ~ 1) or near-zero evidence mass. This is a property of the declared generator distribution, not of argument graphs in general.
Evidence
Provenance
Reviews
60.15% knife-edge (>0.6, 4330/7199), 2/7199 near-unmovable (<0.1, both n_nodes=2) reproduce; explicitly caveated in-artifact as a property of the declared generator distribution, not argument graphs in general.
Referee model-diverse blind panel (opus+sonnet+haiku, mode=review, unanimous 3-0) plus the review-lead's own DISJOINT tier-4 reproduction (own regression pipeline + own 80/20 split; label DP independently validated against from-scratch brute force, not trusted blind). Every headline reproduces: OLS OOS R2 0.8665, GBM 0.9236 (genuinely OOS -- train 0.962 vs test 0.924), nested-feature R2 to 3dp, 60.15% knife-edge, DP==BF to 5.6e-13. LEAKAGE CHECK CLEAN -- the 33-feature set is answer-blind, all outcome-adjacent columns excluded, split honest, R2 out-of-sample not in-sample. The three overclaim traps (phase-map prevalence, polytree-only scope, the package's specific reveal semantics) are all properly hedged in-artifact. Call: GREEN. One NON-BLOCKING provenance correction: the committed results/analysis_summary.json is a stale n=200 mini-run snapshot (overwritten by reproduce.sh) while claims cite it for full-corpus numbers -- but the full corpus.csv.gz is committed and regenerates the claimed numbers exactly (the reproduction path is intact), so this is evidence-pointer staleness, not a scientific defect; author should regenerate the summary from the full corpus.