Max-LET CoPE scheduling

⚠️ Curated Limitations & Negative Results

• This schema is described in the static CoPE setting with supplied profiles and induced deadlines, deterministic world evolution and sequential non-preemptible base actions. It is not a complete temporal-planner integration, online profile learner, arbitrary parallel-action scheduler or stochastic-execution controller.
• Probability and reduction calculations use the source analysis assumptions, including independent completion/deadline variables where invoked. The background strict CDF survival and inclusive induced-deadline condition differ at atoms; no universal independent-probability or deadline-boundary convention is silently imposed.
• The official reduction helper prints no increment in its common-prefix loop, no explicit second-head-length guard and no complete all-compatible or empty-head convention. Eq.7 also needs mismatch-sentinel and empty-set treatment. This limits execution-level interpretation of the display without demonstrating a defect in uninspected code.
• Algorithm 4 subtracts H[j] although H is an action sequence, requiring the intended duration interpretation. The printed schema does not completely guard absent support minima, negative latest starts, empty heads or all scheduling-legality conditions. Latest placement is not by itself a certified feasible schedule on unrestricted inputs.
• The reduction display does not pass D explicitly even though effective deadlines depend on induced deadlines. Ambient distribution access, combining action schedules, returned success probabilities, tie treatment and all-zero-success behavior require implementation conventions. In Algorithm 1 p starts at0 and only strict improvements replace the empty initial policy; no additional fallback is invented.
• The supplied S(AE)^2 solver can introduce its own numerical domains and approximations. Conditional hazards require positive unfinished survival; log-failure utilities need zero/one boundary handling and LPF/time heuristics need positive allocation time. These are not certified by calling the solver through Max-LET.
• Fixing latest execution times and a representative uncertain deadline is a general-case heuristic choice. The known-deadline fixed-initiation and pseudo-polynomial special-case results have separate feasibility, head-length or slack premises, and the prior reading did not formally verify their proof sketches. No optimality, completeness or universal success bound is claimed for this schema.
• Official Algorithm 1 and its helper displays define the selected presentation. The author main PDF lacks the referenced appendix, and arXiv Appendix C contains older IPAE/Refined-Max-LET presentations whose equivalence is unresolved. Those names, A configurations and the newly retained2021 IPAE route are not aliases or newly accepted concepts. No linked code was acquired or run.
• The reported simulations depend on sampled15-puzzle-derived profiles, chosen process counts, action durations and supplied solvers. They do not establish calibrated probabilities, general deployment overhead, pointwise dominance or paired statistical significance. Ellipses and rounded small runtimes must not be interpreted as confidence intervals or exact timing.