Every structure produced by an architect who apprenticed under B. Johnson or P. Stamatin is impossible. No structure produced by an architect who apprenticed under M. Escher, R. Penrose or T. Geisel is impossible. Slightly under half of self-taught architects produce impossible structures. Materials, blueprints, etc. have no visible effect on this.

There are 5 structures proposed by apprentices to B. Johnson or P. Stamatin (D, E, G, H and K), so we don’t need to risk any of the self-taught people.

Cost is based on materials: Nightmares are by far the most expensive, Silver a distant second, the others seem comparable and cheap. G is the only one of our candidates who plans to use Nightmares, so we leave them out and fund D, E, H and K.

I’m not sure that there are no patterns in what works for self-taught architects, and if we were aiming to balance cost & likelihood of impossibility then I might look into that more (since I expect A,L,N to be the the cheapest options with a chance to work), but since we’re prioritizing impossibility I’ll stick with the architects with the competent mentors.

I find a pattern in that buildings using Dreams together with either Wood or Silver have an 80% chance of being Impossible when made by a Self-Taught architect, but honestly this seems irrelevant since the other two types of background are a 100% guarantee so they’re better value for money anyway.

This is true, but ’80%′ here means only ^{16}⁄_{20}. A result this extreme is theoretically p=0.005 to show up out of 20 coin flips...if you treat it as one-tailed, and ignore the fact that you’ve cherry-picked two specific material-pair options out of 21. Overall, I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t simply randomness.

I admit it’s cheating a bit the spirit of the challenge, but in practice, I guess it’s the round amount that makes me suspicious that it might be intentional. But it’s true there doesn’t seem to be a broader materials related pattern, so it may just be as you say.

Every structure produced by an architect who apprenticed under B. Johnson or P. Stamatin is impossible. No structure produced by an architect who apprenticed under M. Escher, R. Penrose or T. Geisel is impossible. Slightly under half of self-taught architects produce impossible structures. Materials, blueprints, etc. have no visible effect on this.

There are 5 structures proposed by apprentices to B. Johnson or P. Stamatin (D, E, G, H and K), so we don’t need to risk any of the self-taught people.

Cost is based on materials: Nightmares are by far the most expensive, Silver a distant second, the others seem comparable and cheap. G is the only one of our candidates who plans to use Nightmares, so we leave them out and fund

D, E, H and K.I got the same result: DEHK.

I’m not sure that there are no patterns in what works for self-taught architects, and if we were aiming to balance cost & likelihood of impossibility then I might look into that more (since I expect A,L,N to be the the cheapest options with a chance to work), but since we’re prioritizing impossibility I’ll stick with the architects with the competent mentors.

I find a pattern in that buildings using Dreams together with either Wood or Silver have an 80% chance of being Impossible when made by a Self-Taught architect, but honestly this seems irrelevant since the other two types of background are a 100% guarantee so they’re better value for money anyway.

This is true, but ’80%′ here means only

^{16}⁄_{20}. A result this extreme is theoretically p=0.005 to show up out of 20 coin flips...if you treat it as one-tailed, and ignore the fact that you’ve cherry-picked two specific material-pair options out of 21. Overall, I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t simply randomness.I admit it’s cheating a bit the spirit of the challenge, but in practice, I guess it’s the round amount that makes me suspicious that it might be intentional. But it’s true there doesn’t seem to be a broader materials related pattern, so it may just be as you say.