better throughput scheduling

update results_comparison.csv

docs/compiler/scheduling-implementation.md

@@ -6,6 +6,24 @@ there; the details below describe current implementation choices.
 
 ## Publication, order, and local materialization
 
+Deferred transfer planning allocates one host slot for repeated full-fragment
+requirements with the same physical producer, payload type, and source slot.
+One immutable producer result identifies one logical inference generation.
+Scalar source projections retain separate publications until their exact
+geometry has a common representation in both analyses.
+
+Boundary planning moves a shared publication's notifications to its earliest
+existing send boundary. The first notification stores the payload before READY;
+later notifications emit READY only. Each reader retains its load and READY
+count. FREE planning includes every physical reader before the first overwrite
+of the shared slot. Existing unique writer-reader releases, register allocation,
+capacity-driven FREE-group merging, and restart barriers remain in force.
+
+Host-slot allocation and shared-boundary planning take expected linear time
+and space in the number of physical consumer transfers. Structured send runs
+retain compact per-lane store flags. They do not duplicate payload shaping
+for notification-only readers.
+
 [`materializeScheduledCompute`](../../src/PIM/Dialect/Spatial/Passes/Transforms/MergeComputeNodes/ScheduledComputeMaterialization.cpp) records
 graph IDs for publication identity, not execution order. Class lanes retain
 graph encounter order independently of physical core IDs, preserving regular
@@ -65,10 +83,14 @@ remain approximations, not extra inferred memory traffic.
 
 [`PipelineScheduling.cpp`](../../src/PIM/Dialect/Spatial/Passes/Transforms/MergeComputeNodes/Scheduling/PipelineScheduling.cpp) caches a per-template
 adjustment between physical execution cost and nominal volume priority, scaling
-it by chunk lanes. Partitioning and packing use the nominal priorities;
-transposes count as bulk moves there. PEFT, final schedule evaluation, and
-reported per-core demand use physical estimates. These quantities must not be
-substituted for one another when interpreting results.
+it by chunk lanes. The original partitioning and packing candidate uses nominal
+priorities; transposes count as bulk moves there. The memory-aware candidate
+uses execution estimates for partitioning, retaining the existing core-budget
+and packing heuristics. Final
+selection evaluates bounded alternatives after physical placement, retaining
+the original candidate when the combined resource estimates worsen. PEFT,
+final schedule evaluation, and reported per-core demand use physical estimates.
+These quantities must not be substituted for measured simulator periods.
 
 Placement compares maximum per-core serial compute plus incident same-stage
 transfer demand, then completion/span and compute load. Each participating core