IntervalAnalysis turns confirmed starts into weighted intervals and decides what
looks questionable — relative to this user's own history, never to a constant.
That distinction is the whole point. A global "over 40 days is suspicious" rule
gets exactly one group wrong, and it is the group whose cycles are already
unusual: the person this product exists for, and the one most tired of apps
assuming she is average. 45 days is unremarkable at a usual of 43 and worth
questioning at a usual of 29. Both are tests.
Two flags, because they earn different responses. A gap near a whole multiple of
the usual is a probable missed entry and produces §14's question. A gap merely
far from usual is down-weighted and left alone — asking would be the
over-questioning §25 warns against, and §51's 45-against-29 outlier is exactly
that case.
Nothing is ever dropped. §12 step 2: unusual data is marked for review or given
less influence, never silently deleted. A questionable interval keeps a quarter
of its recency weight, and a test asserts it is still present and still counts.
Recency decay is here too, ready for the centre in #10: newest cycle weight 1.0,
each older one 0.85 of the last.
12 new tests. The §51 acceptance cases still pass unchanged.
closes#13
b0b4f47a67