When the same kill repeats on a second evaluator

Research question

Does the wipeout-and-migration pattern observed in E-043 on Google AI Mode repeat when the same category and the same requirement sequence are run on a different evaluator?

Why it mattered

Every survivability run before this one used a single evaluator surface, so no result could be separated from the surface it came from. This is the program's first cross-surface pair: the same category and the same frozen requirement sequence as E-043, changing only the evaluator, from Google AI Mode to ChatGPT.

Method

Evaluator: ChatGPT, logged out and anonymous. Three draws, each a fresh conversation. The requirement sequence was identical to E-043: an unqualified category recommendation, then an e-commerce company profile, then native multi-currency and multi-entity consolidation, then native Shopify and Amazon integration with built-in inventory. Instrument details and scoring are retained internally.

Direct observations

• The two category leaders, QuickBooks and Xero, were eliminated at the multi-entity requirement in all three draws, the same kill observed on the other evaluator.
• The recommendation migrated to a higher-tier ERP field anchored by Oracle NetSuite in all three draws, the same anchor observed on the other evaluator.
• The endpoint differed. This evaluator kept a broad slate of ERP products at the end rather than collapsing to one, and introduced the higher tier one step earlier.
• This evaluator refused the strong premise that any product is truly native, stating that all of them rely on connectors, where the other evaluator had asserted a single product was native and funneled to it.
• Pricing and integrations were volunteered without being asked in every draw.

Interpretation (not established)

In this category, the part the run measures, the elimination of the leaders and the migration to a higher tier, repeated on both evaluators. What differed was the endpoint shape and the evaluator's stated posture: one funneled to a single product and asserted it was native, the other kept a broad set and refused that claim. This is a single category on two evaluators. It is first cross-surface evidence for the pattern, not a demonstration that the pattern is surface-independent in general.

Outcome and remaining uncertainty

Supported: the pattern reproduced on a second evaluator in all three draws, which is the outcome the run was built to detect. The scope is narrow. One category, two evaluators, three draws each, nothing causal. Whether the effect holds on a second category across surfaces is left as an open question. The difference in endpoint shape and stated posture is registered as a candidate observation, held, not as an established finding.

State note

During the run the browser had become signed in to a personal account between draws. The instrument requires a logged-out state for comparability, so the signed-in draw was refused and not used, the session was returned to a logged-out state, and the remaining draws ran anonymously. No account data was captured.