Module 06: Experiments, Baselines, and Controlled Change¶
Page Maps¶
graph LR
family["Reproducible Research"]
program["Deep Dive DVC"]
section["Experiments Baselines Controlled Change"]
page["Module 06 Orientation"]
packet["Experiment decision packet"]
family --> program --> section --> page
page -.prepares.-> packet
flowchart LR
baseline["authorized baseline"] --> intervention["bounded intervention"]
intervention --> execution["recorded candidate"]
execution --> comparison["comparability gate"]
comparison --> uncertainty["stability and practical gate"]
uncertainty --> confirmation["independent confirmation"]
confirmation --> promotion["governed promotion"]
DVC experiments can preserve candidate lineage without turning every candidate into a valid comparison or promotion.
This module teaches six separate questions:
- Which baseline is authoritative?
- Which change does the candidate intend to test?
- What did DVC record and isolate?
- Is the result comparable and stable enough to interpret?
- Is the effect practically useful and independently confirmed?
- Who may promote the resulting state?
Skipping a question makes later confidence look stronger than its evidence.
Prerequisites and time¶
You should already be able to:
- identify data content and authority from Module 02;
- name runtime influence from Module 03;
- compare actual command behavior with stage declarations from Module 04;
- reconstruct a complete metric meaning from Module 05.
Allow:
| Work | Suggested time |
|---|---|
| core lessons | 100 minutes |
| worked investigation | 45 minutes |
| exercise packet | 120–180 minutes |
| answer review | 35 minutes |
If a prerequisite is weak, return to it. Experiments amplify hidden state and semantic ambiguity; they do not repair either.
Two evidence settings¶
The module deliberately uses two settings:
| Setting | Purpose | Supported claim |
|---|---|---|
| executable capstone threshold audit | baseline, allowed change, population, metric, and promotion gates | deterministic fixed-cohort comparison decisions |
| modeled five-replicate training study | seed variation, practical gain, winner search, and confirmation | reasoning about stochastic evidence |
Do not claim the capstone generated the replicate table. Do not claim the modeled table proves a real candidate.
Study route¶
flowchart TD
authority["Baseline authority"] --> scope["Experiment scope"]
scope --> records["DVC records and isolation"]
records --> uncertainty["Uncertainty and replication"]
uncertainty --> selection["Comparison and selection"]
selection --> promotion["Promotion and cleanup"]
promotion --> investigation["Worked investigation"]
investigation --> exercises["Cumulative packet"]
exercises --> answers["Answer audit"]
For first-pass independent study:
- Read baseline authority and experiment scope.
- Predict all seven audit decisions.
- Run the focused audit.
- Read DVC experiment records and inspect receipts.
- Read uncertainty before ranking candidates.
- Read comparison, selection, and promotion.
- Complete the worked investigation.
- Produce all ten exercise artifacts before opening answers.
This order delays metric interpretation until authority and comparability are established.
Module map¶
| Page | Question answered |
|---|---|
| Baseline Authority and Experiment Intent | what makes an exact or stochastic baseline authoritative? |
| Experiment Scope and Change Boundaries | which changes are interventions, planned variation, controls, or confounds? |
| DVC Experiment Records and Isolation | what does one experiment record preserve, and how do replicate records form a family? |
| Uncertainty, Replication, and Selection Bias | why is exact-run lineage different from effect stability? |
| Comparing Experiments and Selecting Candidates | how are comparable candidates selected without hiding search and tradeoffs? |
| Promotion, Cleanup, and History Integrity | how does a confirmed configuration become governed state safely? |
| Worked Investigation: Separating Comparability, Uncertainty, and Promotion | where do deterministic, stochastic, and authority claims stop? |
| Exercises | how do you build a complete experiment decision packet? |
| Exercise Answers | which reasoning makes each packet artifact defensible? |
| Glossary | which experiment terms must remain distinct? |
The executable audit¶
Run:
Evidence appears under:
The cases isolate:
| Case | Decision boundary |
|---|---|
| controlled threshold | intended control changes on same population and metric |
| mixed control change | extra declared change breaks attribution |
| mutated baseline | approved anchor no longer matches |
| population drift | cohort continuity breaks |
| metric schema drift | measurement meaning breaks |
| missing intent | allowed change cannot be judged |
| unsafe promotion request | comparison passes but authority is missing |
PASS means the audit classified the case as designed. Read the decision separately.
What DVC experiments contribute¶
DVC experiment commands can preserve and compare candidate state:
Within this module:
| Command surface | Bounded use |
|---|---|
| run | execute and record candidate state |
| show | inspect candidate parameters and metrics |
| diff | compare recorded declared state |
| apply | bring selected candidate changes into workspace review |
They do not define independent replicates, estimate uncertainty, prevent winner selection bias, create confirmation evidence, or authorize promotion.
The decision ladder¶
| Gate | Required evidence | Possible outcome |
|---|---|---|
| execution | DVC and command receipts | executed or failed |
| comparability | baseline, scope, population, metric and runtime continuity | compare or block |
| stability | planned replicate evidence where variation matters | stable enough, uncertain, or untested |
| practical value | minimum gain and safeguards | useful or unattractive |
| confirmation | frozen candidate on independent governed evidence | accept, reject, or abstain |
| promotion | owner, decision, applied-state verification, new authority | promote or block |
A candidate cannot compensate for an earlier failed gate with a larger metric.
What you will produce¶
The exercise packet contains:
audit-predictions.tsv
baseline-authority.md
change-role-ledger.tsv
receipt-boundaries.md
deterministic-comparison.md
replicate-contract.json
replicate-results.tsv
candidate-search-ledger.tsv
confirmation-plan.md
promotion-decision.md
Keep it under:
The packet is the review surface. Shell history is not.
Common wrong turns¶
| Wrong turn | Why it fails |
|---|---|
| compare scores before baseline checks | promising movement biases boundary review |
| call every parameter difference an experiment | visibility does not establish allowed scope |
| call five cached reads replicates | no independent observations were produced |
| select the best seed | seed variation is mistaken for intervention |
| report only the winner | search denominator and selection bias disappear |
| retune after confirmation | confirmation evidence becomes exploration evidence |
| apply and commit immediately | workspace state bypasses authority and verification |
Completion standard¶
You are ready for Module 07 when you can:
- reconstruct and challenge baseline authority;
- classify intervention, planned variation, control, consequence, and confound;
- bound what DVC experiment receipts establish;
- define replicates and preserve failed runs;
- compare candidate families using predeclared summaries and practical thresholds;
- expose the complete candidate search;
- freeze a nominee before independent confirmation;
- separate execution, comparison, stability, usefulness, confirmation, and promotion;
- promote a governed configuration and retain rollback evidence;
- state which claims come from executable evidence and which are modeled reasoning.