What we tested
52 exp-csi-static runs on resplan-12439-floor-0 / csi-link-resplan-12439-multiroom, all attached and gate_passed: the 48-cell main grid (n_agents {0,1,2,3,4,6,8,12} × bands {2.4, 5.0 GHz} × seeds {0,1,2}, 24 placements, depth 3) plus the 4-cell depth-diagnostic arm (N=0, depth {4,6}, both bands). The corpus was assembled resiliently (two sweep-level S3/tunnel aborts; completed cells inventoried and the 30 missing cells gap-filled as independent runs — cell coverage verified 52/52). Reduction: csi_through_wall.py — per-link wall counts derived geometrically from the staged scene (segment-crossing count, ground truth), N=0 path-loss ladders per (band, depth), per-class attenuation/CV slopes with across-seed spread, and the normalized blockage↔variance crossover.
What we found
Criterion 1 — FAILED as stated (layout finding). The layout does not deliver three link classes: geometric wall counts are {link 4: 0 walls; links 0–3: 1 wall each}. No ≥2-wall link exists — the bedroom-3 path crosses a single wall segment (likely through a doorway-gap alignment). All class-resolved conclusions below therefore compare in-room (1 link) vs 1-wall (4 links) only.
Criterion 2 — MET, with the depth question resolved. The N=0 wall-count path-loss ladder is monotone at all of depth {3, 4, 6} on both bands — the previously-reported non-monotone 2.4 GHz ladder did not reproduce on this seed-replicated corpus. Magnitudes: the 1-wall step is 11.0 dB at 5 GHz but only ~0.5 dB at 2.4 GHz (ITU drywall is nearly transparent there) — which by itself explains the 2026-06-03 diary's "<1 dB" through-wall result as seed-robust physics, not noise.
Criterion 3 — FAILED as stated, and inverted. Through-wall links show crossover N* ≈ 0 on every seed and band (variance-dominant from the first occupant) with a small attenuation slope (−0.050 ± 0.019 dB/person at 2.4 GHz, −0.064 ± 0.024 at 5 GHz; mean ± std across 3 seeds). The in-room control is where blockage dominates at low occupancy: crossover N* ≈ 2.0–6.8 at 2.4 GHz (seed spread; noisy) and ≈ 1.3–3.6 at 5 GHz. A physically coherent reading: blockage-dominance requires a strong LOS to block — present in-room, already absent behind a wall where the field is diffuse. This inverts the brief's expectation rather than merely failing it.
What it means for the thesis chain
The geometry-continuum claim needs reformulating: the L4.5↔L4.6 axis is not "in-room=variance, through-wall=blockage" but "strong-LOS=blockage-first, weak-LOS=variance-only" in this residential geometry at these ranges. Depatla-style through-wall counting (LOS-crossing dips) presupposes a strong through-wall LOS at short range — a regime these drywall apartment links at 2.4 GHz do not produce (0.5 dB wall step). Caveats bounding all of this: one floor, one layout with only two link classes, ray-traced with the uniform-drywall palette that c-csi-fidelity-material/01KT9BJ82A… has just shown to be load-bearing, depth ≤ 6, 24 placements. Follow-ons: (1) re-stage the multiroom layout with a true ≥2-wall link (move the bedroom-3 Rx off the doorway axis) before any re-test; (2) a concrete-palette variant of this grid — at 11 dB/wall-class sensitivity the inversion may not survive heavier walls; (3) the Depatla inter-event-time recreation needs a short-range strong-LOS through-wall link, not this layout.