For 20x20 grid, stress-sharing population reached max phenotypic fitness by generation 100; hardwired reached max at generation 1000; without-sharing never reached max

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Stress sharing populations reached target morphology by generation 400, significantly faster than hardwired (1000) or without-sharing populationsfinding0.887
• At generation 1000, hardwired embryos approached maximum fitness with positive slope 0.19 vs without-sharing slope 0.05 (30x30 grid)finding0.858
  Quantitative comparison of late-stage evolutionary dynamics.
• Stress sharing benefit scales with grid complexity (20x20, 30x30, 50x50) and becomes more pronounced in later evolutionary stages when mutations alone failfinding0.844
• Stress-sharing populations reach anatomical targets faster than hardwired or non-sharing populations.finding0.842
  Populations with stress sharing discovered correct morphology by generation 500, vs non-sharing and hardwired (p≪0.01).
• Stress-sharing embryo utilized maximum competency of 4725 units until generation 400, then dropped to ~4500; without-sharing used ~100 unitsfinding0.826
  Links competency utilization to stress sharing and morphological success.
• Genotype and phenotype fitness diverge under stress sharingfinding0.809
• In stress-sharing embryo, average stress reduced to zero at step 40 during sequential target morphogenesis; without-sharing stress settled at non-zero with <55 cells movingfinding0.808
  Shows stress sharing allows perfect formation of part-by-part target patterns.
• By sharing stress with neighbors, one cell’s (or region’s) problem becomes everyone’s problem, leading to a higher willingness to adopt new configurations in which everyone’s free energy is lower (and thus, more optimal morphogenetic problem-solving).quote0.802
  Encapsulates the core idea of stress sharing as collective cooperation.