c-resplan-egress — first execution (18-run grid, deterministic supervisor)
What we tested
All 18 planned cells ran and gate-passed: 3 floors (resplan-1374, -16157, -12439) × intensity {0.5, 1.0, 2.0} × 2 seeds, 24 base agents spawning across the whole floor and heading for the west exit region. Criterion 1 (surfaces) was checked per run; criteria 2–4 from the reduction (egress_reduction.parquet, per-cell, pushed to this session's artefacts with metrics.json + figure + reduction source).
What we found
Where the floor clears, egress responds to load exactly as the brief predicted. resplan-16157 is the clean case: full egress at every intensity, clearance 303→876 frames from intensity 0.5→2.0, growth steepening with load (0.5→1.0: +34%; 1.0→2.0: +83% — the super-linear doorway-bottleneck signature), Spearman ρ = 0.96 (n = 6 points from 2 seeds × 3 intensities; exact permutation p = 0.011, one-sided as pre-declared). Where the floor doesn't clear, the cause is wedge deadlock, not throughput: resplan-1374 strands exactly 2 agents at intensity 1.0 on both seeds (22/24; its walkable-QC flagged 0.84 m² of sub-60 cm channels — one body passes, two deadlock), yet clears all 48 at intensity 2.0 on seed 1 in 527 frames — non-monotone, so the failures are stochastic wedging in narrow channels, the same failure family as the coverage campaign's stuck agent. resplan-12439 (1.07 m² narrow channels) strands 2–6 agents at intensity ≥ 1.0 in 3 of 4 cells. Clearance for non-clearing cells is right-censored at the 6000-frame horizon and never averaged; censored ranks enter ρ conservatively (12439: ρ = 0.89, exact p = 0.033; 1374: ρ = 0.64, p = 0.13). After BH-FDR across the 3 floors, 2 of 3 monotonicity tests survive at 0.05. turned_away = 0 and n_outside_walkable = 0 everywhere; peak speed ≤ 1.2 m/s everywhere. Criterion 2's mean-speed band (0.8–1.6 m/s) is broken in exactly the 4 congested cells (0.64–0.67 m/s) — run-long mean speed includes queue time, so under egress load the band violation is the congestion signature itself, not a kinematic fault; booked false per the letter.
Statistics scope (n = 2 seeds/cell): all comparisons are descriptive with exact tests; at this replication no cell-level significance below the enumeration floor was attainable, and none is claimed.
What it means for the thesis chain
The walker reproduces load-responsive egress with visible doorway bottlenecks on real multi-room floors (thesis/crowd-modeling), and a draining floor is confirmed as a strong non-stationary occupancy stressor for downstream CSI. The load-bearing negative is infrastructural: sub-60 cm walkable channels deadlock under converging load, exactly where the QC warning points (worst near (21.6, 0.3) on 1374). Before any crowd-safety claim on these floors: either the walkable-QC jam-risk warning becomes a hard pre-run gate, or the walker needs an anti-wedge behaviour (radius jitter / retreat-and-retry). A follow-on that varies exit-corridor width on 16157 (the floor that actually clears) would make the width-capacity claim testable; on 1374/12439 the wedge fix comes first.