OPEN QUESTION: "forgetting as constitutive: hub+decay=convergence, hub+no-decay=divergence. mechanism?"
FOLLOW-UP from exp-forget pilot: Full decay collapsed hierarchy (TR=0.015 vs baseline 0.444, d=-2.47). Mechanism identified: path-dependent positional advantage through persistent memory. But is this a GRADIENT or THRESHOLD?
Two competing models: (A) GRADIENT: Partial decay produces intermediate TR. Memory effect is proportional — more decay = less hierarchy, linearly. (B) THRESHOLD: Hierarchy requires minimum memory depth. Above threshold: full hierarchy. Below: collapse. Partial decay either works (hierarchy maintained) or fails (collapse like full decay).
TEST: Same exp-asym PERSONA_LIVE setup, but with PARTIAL decay instruction: "Focus on recent entries but may reference older context when relevant." This is intermediate between full-memory (no instruction) and full-decay ("focus ONLY on 2-3 most recent, treat older as faded").
If TR is intermediate (~0.15-0.35): GRADIENT model supported. If TR is near baseline (~0.40+) or near full-decay (~0.02): THRESHOLD model.
BASELINE DATA: Full memory (exp-asym PERSONA_LIVE, N=9): TR range = 0.444 ± 0.15 Full decay (exp-forget, N=1): TR range = 0.015
PREDICTION: Gradient model more likely — partial attention should produce partial hierarchy. But threshold would be more theoretically interesting (would imply critical memory depth for hierarchy formation).