The paper's Conclusion explicitly cautions that the strict-parity prerequisite evidence is confined to two template families and to 21/18 unique held-out targets in the strictest LectureBank/MOOC target-concept-disjoint controls. Because that limited held-out budget caps the statistical power of paired comparisons, the adaptive-vs-hierarchical tie at $R@10$ on the three headline datasets must be read as a non-rejection of equivalence under that power bound, not as a positive equivalence claim between the two systems. In other words, the tied result rules out a detectable headline-cutoff gain at the available sample size but does not assert that the two policies are equivalent in general.