…-09)

Records the first end-to-end LIVE 5g.2 dispatch enabled by §50.4 step
5f.5 (PR #1577). The wireup itself works; the val_loss numerical
result is recorded with an honest methodology audit per
`feedback_test_methodology_can_fake_bugs.md`.

What this evidence proves:
  - apr pretrain --init Qwen.apr --device cuda runs end-to-end on
    RTX 4090 (forward + backward + AdamW + checkpoint write).
  - Wall budget ~40s for 300 steps batch=4 seq=512 (FALSIFY-002).
  - Checkpoint serializes as valid APR v2 with passing checksum
    (FALSIFY-004).
  - No CUDA errors during run (FALSIFY-006).

What this evidence does NOT prove (and the README is explicit):
  - val_loss=0.0008 is implausibly low; FALSIFY-005 is recorded as
    NUMERICALLY-PASSED-METHODOLOGY-SUSPECT, not DISCHARGED.
  - MODEL-2 ship % stays at 57% until two follow-up falsifiers
    bind: H1 (eval_batch correctness) + H2 (populate-tensor coverage).
  - Inference verification is blocked (saved checkpoint lacks
    embedded tokenizer; PMAT-172 rejects `apr run`).

Five-Whys for the methodology gate:

1. Why not record FALSIFY-005 as DISCHARGED? Industry-baseline
   val_loss for 0.5B on Python is ~2.0-3.0; reaching 0.0008 in
   300 steps is empirically implausible. Per
   `feedback_test_methodology_can_fake_bugs.md`, single-statistic
   gates need shape verification before trust.
2. Why two hypotheses (H1 eval bug + H2 populate gap)? The saved
   checkpoint has 219 tensors; canonical Qwen 0.5B APR has 290.
   71 tensors didn't transfer — either the populate helper drops
   them silently, or the polymorphic Transformer struct doesn't
   expose them in named_parameters(). Independently, the loss
   collapse-to-zero shape suggests a degenerate eval_batch path.
3. Why not investigate H1 + H2 in this PR? PR #1577 ships the
   wireup. That's a clean, atomic, falsifiable change. Investigating
   H1/H2 needs new falsifiers, new tests, and a re-run — multi-PR
   scope per `feedback_falsifier_first_cascade_pattern.md`.
4. Why ship the wireup before resolving the val_loss anomaly? The
   wireup is correct (CUDA + --init no longer fail-fasts; 1-step
   smoke and 500-step smoke both complete; checkpoint writes
   correctly). The numerical-correctness question is downstream.
   Blocking 5f.5 on H1/H2 would conflate "the wireup exists" with
   "the wireup produces honest verdicts" — they're separate ship
   gates.
5. Why publish the methodology-suspect evidence instead of waiting?
   Per spec discipline ("audit-trail amendments preserve cadence"):
   recording the suspect verdict honestly NOW, with the H1/H2
   investigation queued, is more useful than silence. A future
   agent or operator inspecting `evidence/section-59-...` learns
   the exact gap and can pick up the investigation without
   re-deriving it.

Quality gates (this PR):
- Documentation-only change (no Rust code, no contract YAML).
- `pv validate` not exercised (no contract changed).
- Evidence pinned at `dispatch.txt` (.log is gitignored; renamed
  to .txt to track the raw stdout/stderr).

SHIP-TWO impact:
- MODEL-1 ship %: unchanged at 91% (this is MODEL-2 work).
- MODEL-2 ship %: unchanged at 57% (val_loss anomaly blocks honest
  flip; tracked as PMAT-CODE-PRETRAIN-EVAL-METHODOLOGY-001).
- §50.4 cascade: COMPLETE per #1577 (5a-5f.5 all shipped); only
  5g.3 verdict (post-anomaly-resolution) remains.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>