Finding (Build F, 2026-07-06)
The dense certified-lineage release failed its zero-support gate on exactly 20 cms_medicaid.month2024_12.state_enrollment.{state}.total_chip_enrollment@2024 targets: AK, CA, DC, HI, IL, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, OH, OK, SC, VT, WY.
That state list is not a sampling artifact (CA is in it, on a 337,704-household base). It corresponds to the Medicaid-expansion CHIP (M-CHIP) states: CMS's total_chip_enrollment counts M-CHIP + separate CHIP, while the model's materialized enrollment concept produces separate-CHIP-style membership only — so M-CHIP-dominated states materialize zero support for a positive target. A target-concept vs model-concept mismatch, not missing data.
Two consequences:
- The remaining ~30 states' CHIP targets are ALSO conceptually mixed (their totals include an M-CHIP share the model doesn't represent), so calibration over-pulls child weights there to hit an unreachable-by-concept total. The zero-support gate only catches the pure-M-CHIP extreme.
- Build F proceeded with a documented feed supersession (v6 = v5 minus exactly these 20 rows, sha
9f8edbb9...), which unblocks the gate but does not fix the concept.
Ask
Map the CHIP target family onto concepts the model actually materializes: either split CMS enrollment into M-CHIP vs separate-CHIP components at the ledger level (calibrating each against its true model concept), or add an M-CHIP-inclusive enrollment concept to the materialization. Related: #233 (Medicaid/CHIP spending targets), #170 (eligibility-to-enrollment diagnostics). Same disease as populace#320's capital-gains finding: targets and columns that encode program-structure concepts must be mapped explicitly, never assumed 1:1.
Finding (Build F, 2026-07-06)
The dense certified-lineage release failed its zero-support gate on exactly 20
cms_medicaid.month2024_12.state_enrollment.{state}.total_chip_enrollment@2024targets: AK, CA, DC, HI, IL, KY, MD, ME, MI, MN, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, OH, OK, SC, VT, WY.That state list is not a sampling artifact (CA is in it, on a 337,704-household base). It corresponds to the Medicaid-expansion CHIP (M-CHIP) states: CMS's
total_chip_enrollmentcounts M-CHIP + separate CHIP, while the model's materialized enrollment concept produces separate-CHIP-style membership only — so M-CHIP-dominated states materialize zero support for a positive target. A target-concept vs model-concept mismatch, not missing data.Two consequences:
9f8edbb9...), which unblocks the gate but does not fix the concept.Ask
Map the CHIP target family onto concepts the model actually materializes: either split CMS enrollment into M-CHIP vs separate-CHIP components at the ledger level (calibrating each against its true model concept), or add an M-CHIP-inclusive enrollment concept to the materialization. Related: #233 (Medicaid/CHIP spending targets), #170 (eligibility-to-enrollment diagnostics). Same disease as populace#320's capital-gains finding: targets and columns that encode program-structure concepts must be mapped explicitly, never assumed 1:1.