diff --git a/AGENTS.md b/AGENTS.md
index 1877702..879c48a 100644
--- a/AGENTS.md
+++ b/AGENTS.md
@@ -32,52 +32,73 @@ for e in sorted(m): print(e, sum(1 for v in m[e].values() if v), '/', len(m[e]))
 `['hookdeck', 'event-gateway']`, `-no-skills` twins of each, and
 `codex-gpt-5.4-mini` in both arms as a deliberately weaker model.
 
-**What the numbers say.** Nine of nineteen scenarios discriminate, which is a
-healthy benchmark rather than a flat one. The frontier agents pass nearly
-everything; the weak model is where most failures live, which is the floor
-working as intended.
-
-The skills axis is the interesting result and it is not uniform. Claude gains
-one scenario from skills, GPT-5.6 nets zero, and the weak model is **two worse
-with skills than without** — on the most recent published run it loses four
-scenarios and gains two. That direction is a finding about our documentation
-rather than about the model, and there is a known mechanism: a skill that lists
-example values is read as an exhaustive list, which once led a weak model to
-conclude a supported provider was unsupported. Do not report the skills delta as
-a single number; it has a different sign at different capability levels.
-
-**The weak-model figure is −2 and was written here as −3 for eleven days.** Both
-−3 readings are from 13 August and no run since has reproduced them: eight of
-the nine later runs read −2 and one read 0. 13 August is also the credit-outage
-day described under costs below, so treat anything measured that day as suspect
-until its rows are checked against the outage window — the point of that
-paragraph is that a bad population is identified by its cause, and this figure
-was never re-derived after the cause was found. Recompute from `results/runs/`
-rather than quoting this paragraph:
+**What the numbers say.** Seven of the nineteen scenarios are failed by at least
+one experiment on the published snapshot, which is a healthy benchmark rather
+than a flat one. The frontier agents pass nearly everything; the weak model is
+where most failures live, which is the floor working as intended.
+
+**Read a skills delta only off two arms that ran the same day.**
+`results/latest.json` is a merged snapshot (#60): the frontier `-no-skills` arms
+in it were executed on 1 September and their `+skills` twins on 14 September, so
+subtracting them compares two instruments a fortnight apart and does not produce
+a delta at all. Only the weak pair runs weekly, so it is the only clean
+comparison in that file, and there it reads **+4** — 18/19 with skills against
+14/19 without.
+
+**The weak model is not worse with skills on any evidence since August, and this
+paragraph said it was for six weeks.** Across the five full-suite pairwise
+executions of that pair the delta reads −3, −2, −1, +1, +4, with nothing in the
+instrument changing between the last three. #2 was closed on 22 September on that
+basis. Pooling the three September executions gives `+skills` 48/57 against
+44/57, and all of the gain is Outpost — 14/15 against 10/15, with Event Gateway
+level at 34/42 in both arms. A quantity that has taken five values on an
+unchanged instrument is not a measurement yet, so do not quote a weak-model
+skills delta without saying which executions produced it.
+
+The −3 is from 13 August, the credit-outage day described under costs below, so
+treat anything measured that day as suspect until its rows are checked against
+the outage window: a bad population is identified by its cause, not by what its
+rows look like.
+
+**Recompute per execution, not per snapshot file.** A snapshot republishes the
+cells a run did not re-measure, so iterating `results/runs/*.json` counts one
+execution many times — the 17 August pair appears in six files and reads −2 in
+all six, which is how "eight of the nine later runs read −2" came to be written
+here. Key each cell by its run before counting anything:
 
 ```bash
 python3 -c "
-import json,glob,os
+import json,glob
 from collections import defaultdict
+cells={}
 for f in sorted(glob.glob('results/runs/*.json')):
-    arms=defaultdict(lambda:[0,0])
     for r in json.load(open(f))['results']:
-        e=r['experiment']
-        if not e.startswith('codex-gpt-5.4-mini'): continue
-        arms['base' if e.endswith('-no-skills') else 'skills'][0] += 1 if r['passed'] else 0
-        arms['base' if e.endswith('-no-skills') else 'skills'][1] += 1
-    s,b=arms['skills'],arms['base']
-    if s[1] and b[1]: print(os.path.basename(f)[:16], f'{s[0]}/{s[1]}', f'{b[0]}/{b[1]}', f'{s[0]-b[0]:+d}')
+        run = r.get('runId') or (r.get('ranAt') or '')[:10]
+        cells[(run, r['eval'], r['experiment'])] = r
+arms=defaultdict(lambda: defaultdict(lambda: [0, 0]))
+for (run, _, exp), r in cells.items():
+    if not exp.startswith('codex-gpt-5.4-mini'): continue
+    a = 'base' if exp.endswith('-no-skills') else 'skills'
+    arms[run][a][0] += 1 if r['passed'] else 0
+    arms[run][a][1] += 1
+for run in sorted(arms, key=str):
+    s, b = arms[run]['skills'], arms[run]['base']
+    if s[1] and b[1]: print(f'{str(run):14} {s[0]}/{s[1]:<3} {b[0]}/{b[1]:<3} {s[0]-b[0]:+d}')
 "
 ```
 
-**Do not read the Outpost-only +2 as contradicting it.** Loop 2's corrected
-measurement was `+skills` 12/12 against `-no-skills` 10/12 — but that is five
-Outpost scenarios across all three models, not fifteen-plus scenarios on the
-weak model, and the two populations answer different questions. They were
-conflated once in conversation into a claim that the delta's *sign* had flipped,
-which no run supports. State the scenario set and the model with any skills
-delta, or it will be compared against a number measuring something else.
+Two things that output will not tell you. The denominators are the filter: a row
+reading `2/2` is a partial re-run of a couple of cells, not a suite delta. And
+`runId` only exists from 1 September, so earlier executions fall back to their
+date and two on the same day merge — which is another reason 13 August needs
+reading by cause rather than by row.
+
+**State the scenario set and the model with any skills delta**, or it will be
+compared against a number measuring something else. Loop 2's corrected
+measurement was `+skills` 12/12 against `-no-skills` 10/12, but that is five
+Outpost scenarios across all three models rather than nineteen scenarios on the
+weak model, and the two populations answer different questions. That they now
+point the same way is not a reason to merge them.
 
 **Product findings come from runs, not speculation.** Several concern
 `hookdeck listen`: it crashes without a TTY unless given `--output compact`; a