Submission-Ready Manuscript

I checked the results section and the claims list against the results files, and saved a corrected copy of the results section to research/paper/results-checked.md. The claim checker gives no errors or warnings on the corrected copy. On your original it found 6 errors and 9 warnings.

"…test accuracy of 0.874 … against 0.860": TileMix's stored value is 0.87346, which rounds to

0.873, not 0.874. Split into two sentences, each with its own 95% interval and seed count.
2.

"significantly better calibrated, lowering ECE by 0.0049": the interval for the difference runs from −0.018 to 0.0078, which includes zero. Now: "−0.0049 (95% CI −0.018 to 0.0078, 5 seeds), not distinguishable from zero at this sample size."
3.

"improves accuracy by 2.8%": the stored value is 0.02755 as a fraction, so "2.8%" is a conversion done by hand, and it reads as a relative change. Now: "raised accuracy … by 0.028 (95% CI 0.019 to 0.036, 5 seeds)."
4.

"at no extra training cost": the interval from −0.69 to 2.35 minutes includes zero, but it doesn't show zero cost. Now the estimate and interval.
5.

"generalises … outperforms the baseline (0.791 vs 0.774)": each arm is a single run, with no interval and no stored difference. Now each run in its own sentence, with "one run each can't separate the gap from seed-to-seed variation".
6.

"This is because mixing tiles forces…": no experiment isolated the mechanism. Now "One explanation…, not tested here, is…"

Passed unchanged: "The paired difference was 0.013 (95% CI 0.010 to 0.016, 5 seeds)."

Claims list: C1 checked; C2–C4 revised (replacement sentences given); C5 open: needs RegionalCover runs on several seeds per arm with the paired difference stored, and even then supports "on RegionalCover", not "generalises to larger regional datasets".