The eighth was not a constant

The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes which candidate the table selects, at each of 5 separations between the candidates, over 800 draws apiece. The earlier field reports this flat at about an eighth across list length, on a table and a world it never varies. Vary how much the omitted coefficients are worth — one multiplier, with the table, the list, the law and the sample size all held — and it runs from 17.6% to 1.5%, a factor of 11.75. The world in which every candidate is true is the world in which the tuning list decides most; the world in which one candidate dominates is the world in which it decides nothing.

The probability that a per-candidate tuning list changes the winner, at three list lengths on three candidate tables, over 800 draws in each of the nine cells. Along a row — the reading the earlier field takes — it moves by a factor of at most 1.21, so that field's invariant survives on every table. Down a column it moves by up to 1.98. The list length is the dial that does not move this number and the table is one that does, and the earlier field varied only the first.

How large each step is on the two tuning lists this collection chooses from, both cut to 8 values. The whitening window's list is a geometric ladder — 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, 30 — whose steps run from 1.0 to 10.0 lags, a factor of 10.00. The sieve order's list is an interval of integers — 0, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 — whose steps are 1 or 2, a factor of 2.00. Fitting the step against the value it starts from on logarithms gives 0.742 for the window and 0.134 for the order, where one is a step proportional to where it is taken and nought is a step of the same size everywhere. The two rules therefore change a candidate's criterion by different amounts, and no choice of values makes them the same.