Smiteless v0.9.71

• THE POOL: your champions, priced in your own LP - and the stat that finally stops lying to you

New feature, and it is aimed at the single biggest lever there is. Smiteless has enforced
champion-pool discipline since MAX ELO shipped. It has never once told you what your pool
should BE. Now it does - in the same LP your habits are priced in.

Last version priced the five habits your profile grades and named the one worth fixing.
The other half of the climb - and by every study, the bigger half - is which champions you
press Find Match on. The old answer to that was three win-rate bullets on your profile
("play more Sett 58%"). That's not an answer. 58% of what? Better than what? Worth what?

THE POOL - 9 champions over your last 57
  Sett            +38 LP / 10 on it     14W-6L over 20    70% on it vs 45% otherwise
  Ornn              +11pp lean           6W-3L over 9
  Darius          -44 LP / 10 on it      2W-8L over 10    20% on it vs 58% otherwise
  POOL WIDTH      -29 LP / 10 games     top 3: 20W-15L  ·  the other 6: 3W-13L

• What a champion is worth, in LP, per ten games on it. Not a win rate - the ladder. Your
  own measured LP (+23 / -17, read from your rank snapshots, not "about 20") against your
  own baseline. QUEUE Sett and BENCH Darius now sit on your profile with the number and
  the receipt attached, and the price appears right on the splash card for each champion.
• Compared against YOU, not against 50%. A 47% champion is not a leak for a player who
  wins 44% of everything else - it's their second-best pick, and every tool that flags it is
  wrong. Every comparison here is this champion vs your other games.
• POOL WIDTH: what your whole pool costs you. Your top 3 against everything else you
  queued, priced per ten of your games - the actual cost of ranked tourism, measured on you
  instead of quoted from a study. When your top 3 hold 80%+ of your games it says so and
  tells you there's nothing to cut.
• Your main is never benched. A main on an awful run is variance, and the card says
  exactly that: rough patch (6W-20L) - variance, not the pick. Keep queueing it. The old
  coach would tell you to ease off the champion you're best at, which is the worst advice
  the app was capable of giving.
• It reaches you in champ select. Hover a champion your own history has priced and the
  panel says so while you can still change your mind - ⚠ Darius: -93 LP / 10 on it (2W-12L) - in red, on its own line. Your own receipt outranks a study, so the 1M-game
  mastery warning is now the fallback, for champions your history can't speak about yet.
• One brain. The recommender's veto IS this board's bench. The page that tells you to
  bench a champion and the recommender that quietly stops suggesting it were two separate
  pieces of math that could disagree about the same champion. They can't any more.

And the part that matters most: it corrects for the fact that it is looking at all of your
champions at once. This is the failure mode of every "your best champion" stat ever put in
front of a League player, and it is not a rounding error - the guard suite measures it. On
random histories where every champion is a true coin flip, testing each one at the ordinary
bar declares a "proven" best or worst champion in 49% of them. Half. So the bar every
champion has to clear is divided among the champions being tested, in both directions - one
eligible champion needs z>=1.63, three need z>=2.11, eight need z>=2.48 - which takes that
same measured false-positive rate down to 7%. Underneath that bar a row still shows you
its numbers, labelled as what it is: a lean, never a price. A champion needs 6 games before
it can say anything at all, the whole board needs 15, and a one-trick gets told honestly that
there's nothing of yours to compare against. The pool-width test is a single question asked
in advance, so it correctly takes no such correction - and it refuses to price a "top 3" when
your games are spread evenly enough that which three is an alphabetical accident.

Tested: 15 guard groups plus a 1,200-pool fuzz that re-scores every random history
twice - once corrected, once not - and fails if the correction isn't measurably doing its
job, so this can never quietly rot into the stat it was built to replace. Also asserted, on
every shape of history that can exist: no priced claim ever escapes below its bar or its
sample; an earner is always positive and a bench row always negative; a main is never benched;
the same champion can never be both the queue and the bench; a champion price is always
quoted "per 10 on it" and a width price always "per 10 games", because mixing those two units
would be a lie; the price is always strictly below the flattering arithmetic on the raw gap;
and the profile page and the recommender are checked against each other champion by champion,
in both directions. A pool of junk - null rows, a champion claiming more wins than games, a
non-numeric average, an empty list - can't crash the board or fake up a sample. Every render
state was drawn and looked at.

Two bugs found while building it, both fixed. The champ-select note is drawn on one
unwrapped line and had only ~148px of room, so anything longer than about 28 characters was
being silently clipped mid-word - the team-scout roster line and the climb warning have
both been losing their tails there for releases. It now gets its own full-width line, and
truncates with an ellipsis when it has to, so a cut-off line reads as "go look at the page"
instead of as a rendering bug. And that line was drawn in green regardless of content -
including for the sub-12k mastery warning. A caution in the "all good" color is a caution
nobody reads; it now takes its tone from what it's actually saying.

And a tripwire for the release process itself: the self-test now asserts that every
core/ and ui/ module is in the frozen build's hidden-import list. Five modules were only
being included by luck. A module the packager misses ships an installer that crashes the
moment you use the feature - which is the worst possible way to ship a release named after it.