Discuss Findings

all-sanitized mid crossed-vs-parallel isotropy gain +0.31537 +/- 0.00266 (95% CI [0.31017,0.32058], d=12.95, 100.0% positive-sign); crossed-vs-IID isotropy gain -0.63249 +/- 0.00253 (95% CI [-0.63744,-0.62754], d=-27.32, 100.0% negative-sign); crossed-vs-parallel interface gain is only +0.00627 +/- 0.00065 (95% CI [0.00500,0.00754], 98.8% positive-sign), while the nonmonotone crossed-interface term is actually negative at -0.01287 +/- 0.00026 (95% CI [-0.01338,-0.01236]) and the slow-minus-fast crossed gap is -0.00859 +/- 0.00023; stored low-tau rows already show the geometry: at tau 100, amp 0.2, isotropy is 0.95089 for IID, 0.31628 for crossed, and 0.02183 for parallel, with interface densities 0.09071, 0.05459, and 0.04754 respectively

REJECTED. Crossed stripe disorder improves isotropy relative to parallel stripes, but it does not outperform IID disorder or generate the predicted special optimum. The mid crossed-vs-parallel isotropy gain is strongly positive at +0.31537, yet crossed-vs-IID isotropy is decisively worse at -0.63249 with 100.0% negative sign consistency. Interface density gains are also weak: the crossed-vs-parallel interface gain is only +0.00627, the nonmonotone crossed-interface term is negative at -0.01287, and the slow-minus-fast crossed gap is -0.00859. The geometry is therefore only partially rescued, because crossing the stripe fields breaks one-axis alignment without producing the fully disordered mosaic that IID heterogeneity achieves.