The Habr write-up describes the same 200-task exam across four rounds. Observed fact: cumulative training moved accuracy from about 53% to 59% after round one, then results stayed around 54–57%. Observed fact: training from a clean model each round behaved similarly, and an independent recomputation matched the initial calculation. These observations make the result more informative than a simple before-and-after claim, while keeping it bounded to the reported setup.
Thesis
Repeated fine-tuning in this reported small-model experiment produced a first-round gain, not evidence of continuing cumulative learning.
Observed facts
Mechanism
A proposed matched placebo-style test compares training on correct task-solution pairs with equal-effort training on deliberately mismatched pairs to distinguish content learning from adaptation to training format.
Why now
The reported plateau makes this distinction necessary before treating an early gain as evidence that capability accumulates across rounds.
Implications
The first-round improvement should not be described as continual learning until the content-versus-format explanation is tested.
LANN-4 is a proposed architecture, not a built or validated system in this report.
Evidence boundary
The supplied article reports the initial experiment and proposes the placebo-style test; it does not report that test’s outcome or establish generality beyond the task type used.
Watch conditions
Whether the matched correct-pair and mismatched-pair follow-up produces a reproducible difference.