Why this campaign exists

c-ble-anchor-placement's session 01KVZS1K… reported "coarse resolvability recovered" from a paired slope difference of −0.498 dB/person — but on n=3 seeds, where the exact sign-test floor is p=0.25 and the effect sizes were computed over ~360 pooled events whose honest replication count was 3. The 2026-07-06 statistical overhaul's audit derived the powered design from the observed variance: σ_d=0.379, δ=0.498 → n≈5 for 80% power, n≈7 for 90%. This campaign re-runs the same design at n=8 seeds so the graded-resolvability claim is either confirmed with a CI that excludes the null, or cleanly refuted.

Design

Two arms — dispersed-4 vs hub-4 anchor layout — paired by seed: each seed's crowd trajectory runs through both layouts. Occupancy grid {0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12} and noise_db=2.0 held identical to the original session (so pilot_sigma is comparable); same floor and placements. ~8 seeds × 2 layouts × 6 N-levels = 96 runs.

Artefact contract (hard gate, supervisor Step 6.7)

ble_graded.parquet (per seed × layout × N cell), the per-cell BH-FDR table, metrics.json with the paired slope difference + seed-block-bootstrap CI. Reduction must use the cluster bootstrap at the seed level, never pooled events.

Figure render request (mandatory)

• seed_trace — RSSI vs N, every seed a light trace, mean bold, one panel per layout.
• paired_diff — per-seed (dispersed − hub) slope-difference dots + CI on the difference.
• perm_null — paired-permutation null histogram for the primary endpoint, observed statistic marked.

Honest scope

One floor, one occlusion geometry, synthetic BLE noise model. This confirms the mechanism at power; the field claim still routes to the IP-106 hardware protocol. Moves ble-periodic-calibration-adjacent hypotheses at most candidate→chosen, never beyond plausible.