# Study 000M Results

## Primary Answer

`Yes, supported.`

The archive is better explained by `selective ecological narrowing as part of the compensation phenotype` than by incidental ecological drift alone.

## 1. Running ecology became more concentrated, not more broadly distributed

Yearly running ecology moved toward stronger concentration:

- `2025` running share of structured hours: `21.00%`
- `2026` running share of structured hours: `84.18%`
- `2025` treadmill running share: `92.781%`
- `2026` treadmill running share: `98.736%`
- `2025` outdoor running share: `7.219%`
- `2026` outdoor running share: `1.264%`

That pattern does not read like broad environmental normalization.

It reads like successful running expression becoming more concentrated inside a narrower ecological band.

## 2. The late flagship running state remained ecologically distinct after full correction

The full-data audit corrected a major ecology problem:

- the early flagship window contained `7` GPS-bearing hybrid-cardio sessions totaling `9.4458` miles and `4.9936` hours
- the late flagship window contained `0`

At the same time, the corrected flagship running windows still showed:

- early window treadmill share: `90.0%`
- late window treadmill share: `100.0%`
- early running share of 28-day activity: `12.752%`
- late running share of 28-day activity: `55.398%`

So the narrowing result survives correction.

The key interpretation is not:

`the early archive was purely indoor and the late archive was indoor`

It is:

`the later successful running state remained more concentrated and more distinct even after hidden hybrid ecology was accounted for`

## 3. The archive already named this pattern before 000M formalized it

The strongest corrected full-program model from `000C` already described:

`selective adaptation through corrected ecological narrowing into later stabilized running specialization`

`000M` exists because that phrase was strong enough to deserve direct testing rather than casual reuse.

## 4. Ecological narrowing had consequences at the boundary of expression

The boundary-expression evidence does not support broad tolerance.

From the support-case table:

- October 2025 outside-context cluster:
  - running-share context: `5.1299%`
  - treadmill neighbors: `1.75`
  - mean distance: `2.091` miles
  - HR residual burden: `13.8844 bpm`

- April 2026 supported boundary probe:
  - running-share context: `91.0839%`
  - treadmill neighbors: `32.0`
  - distance: `5.4541` miles
  - HR residual burden: `0.6887 bpm`

This shows that successful outside expression did not simply remain available everywhere.

It depended on ecologically supported states.

That makes ecological narrowing more than a descriptive preference change. It appears tied to where low-burden expression was actually possible.

## 5. Multiple successful modes did not overturn ecological narrowing

`000K` showed two successful low-burden modes:

- `K1`: long-settled low-embedding expression
- `K2`: high-embedding boundary expression

and one failed mode:

- `K3`: short low-support high-burden expression

This could have weakened ecological narrowing if the archive showed broad successful expression across many ecological states.

It did not.

Instead, the two successful modes still remained ecologically constrained:

- one needed extreme bout settlement
- one needed dense embedding support

So `000K` refines ecological narrowing rather than overturning it.

The result is:

`narrowing toward a small set of successful ecological routes`

not:

`broadly regained tolerance`

## 6. Narrowing was not total simplification

The study did not support a crude story in which all non-running support disappeared.

Important nuance remains:

- `2026` had far less indoor-conditioning overall than `2025`
- but `26.34%` of `2026` indoor-conditioning hours were still GPS-bearing hybrid cardio, compared with `4.20%` in `2025`

So ecological narrowing was not:

`everything except treadmill running disappeared`

It was more selective than that.

The archive is better explained by:

- concentration of successful running ecology
- plus selective retention of certain support ecologies

## Strongest Result

The strongest full-study answer is:

`Ecological narrowing appears to have been part of the compensation phenotype itself.`

The constrained system did not simply adapt inside a fixed ecology.

It appears to have adapted partly by reorganizing its ecology around what it could successfully express at lower burden.