{
  "schema": "classical-reconstruction-benchmark/v1",
  "benchmark_id": "explicit-detector-threshold-recovery-sandbox",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "ontology_contract_sha256": "b749348b619769f3b4bf2d5e7cd3a50a6b38c9aaad22983846c893dab09b8d24",
  "observables": [
    {"id":"event_times","definition":"threshold crossing times generated by detector state dynamics","units":"simulation time"},
    {"id":"near_zero_pair_ratio","definition":"observed close-pair count divided by Poisson expectation for same event rate","units":"dimensionless"},
    {"id":"event_rate","definition":"detected events per simulation time","units":"inverse simulation time"}
  ],
  "sources": [{"id":"classical-reconstruction-detector-sandbox-v1","role":"project-defined falsifiable detector-dynamics sandbox; not external experimental evidence"}],
  "model_class": {"input":"continuous positive intensity plus stochastic modulation","detector_state":["leaky accumulator q","recovery variable r"],"event_rule":"event only when q crosses a fixed threshold","post_event":"q reset and r reduced","recovery":"dr/dt=(1-r)/tau_recovery","saturation":"input contribution multiplied by r"},
  "candidate_grid": {"tau_recovery":[0.0,0.01,0.03,0.06,0.12],"threshold":[0.2,0.5,0.8,1.1],"tau_leak":[0.03,0.06]},
  "tolerances": {"minimum_events":100,"suppressed_close_pair_ratio":0.5},
  "q1_q5": {"Q1":"tests whether explicit detector dynamics can generate event anticoincidence","Q2":"no optical experimental law claimed","Q3":"event point process generated and measured","Q4":"not a source-plus-detector reconstruction","Q5":"not earned"},
  "scope_exclusion": "A detector-only refractory effect is not evidence that a continuous field explains single-emitter antibunching. The sandbox exists to stop detector nonlinearities from being excluded by assumption and to expose their exact statistical contribution."
}