If a swarm posted with your habits, would it hold more attention than ambient noise? top-clone-attention and mean-clone-attention rise and fall with the daily cycle; the top clone stays at about twice the mean.
Try this Choose Noisy timeline (12 clones against 90 noise accounts). live-clones drops to about half at times, and top-noise-attention can overtake top-clone-attention.
About this model Where it ends up
A MathPets counterfactual seeded from aggregate X statistics (no post text is used): if many accounts posted like you, how would they fare against ambient noise? clone-count clones post on your schedule with your engagement; noise-count noise accounts post at random in about 8% of hours. The run lasts one simulated week, one tick per hour.
Each hour every account's attention shrinks by decay-rate percent. A clone posts with a chance scaled from posts-per-day that peaks at peak-hour, gaining 0.8 + engagement-power/25 and spending 4 energy; a noise account that posts gains 0.5 to 1.3. Then the hour's budget, attention-budget scaled down away from peak-hour and at night, is shared out in proportion to current attention, with clones collecting 0.15 per unit and noise 0.12. Movement on the board is decorative.
The split is proportional, not superlinear, so it keeps shares where they are rather than handing the leader more: top-clone-attention ends at about twice mean-clone-attention, not a runaway. The reply, repost and original labels only choose each clone's color; reply-share and repost-share do not change any monitor.
