Weights
Every number the ranker uses to compare candidates, in one place. The evidence weights are hand-set guesses and are NOT calibrated: they order candidates and a score is not a probability. The fit on the DriftBench dev split (bench/data/calibration/fit.json) tried fitted dimension priors, a fitted probe and rule ratio, a fitted NONE and isotonic maps, and no fitted weight replaced these values, so they stay.
What the fit did support is a probability for a ranking whose candidates rest on their attribute change alone (probabilities): each candidate's share of the posterior against its rivals and NONE, read through the isotonic map, which gives the rate at which candidates with that share were the cause. The map is fit on every scenario of FIT and is not held out; out of fold, over the rankings that print a probability, it scored a Brier of 0.170 against 0.173 for saying one in n and 0.184 for the shares alone. The values are rates, not shares, and a ranking's values need not add up to one. A ranking with a probe, rule or spectrum item gets no probability: on rankings with a probe the shares with the hand-set probe ratio scored worse out of fold than saying one in n, and a fitted ratio scored no better. No dev scenario has a history, so spectrum weights are untested.
Properties
A spectrum score below this (half of perfect) never makes a candidate correlated.
Fewer included passing runs than this say nothing: one pass makes every change perfect.