The phenomena you discuss are explainted in the paper, and in other posts, and discussed at length in other comment threads.
I haven’t found an explanation about the “stochastic sensitivity issue” in the paper, can you please point me to a specific section/page/quote? All that I found about this in the paper was the sentence:
Our theorems apply to stochastic environments, but we present a deterministic case study for clarity.
(I’m also not aware of previous posts/threads that discuss this, other than my comment here.)
I brought up this issue as a demonstration of the implications of incorrectly assuming that the theorems in the paper apply when there are more “options” available after action 1 than after action 2.
(I argue that this issue shows that the informal description in the OP does not correctly describe the theorems in the paper, and it’s not just a matter of omitting details.)
I haven’t found an explanation about the “stochastic sensitivity issue” in the paper, can you please point me to a specific section/page/quote? All that I found about this in the paper was the sentence:
(I’m also not aware of previous posts/threads that discuss this, other than my comment here.)
I brought up this issue as a demonstration of the implications of incorrectly assuming that the theorems in the paper apply when there are more “options” available after action 1 than after action 2.
(I argue that this issue shows that the informal description in the OP does not correctly describe the theorems in the paper, and it’s not just a matter of omitting details.)