diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md
index 7167339..27c19c2 100644
--- a/CLAUDE.md
+++ b/CLAUDE.md
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ GIANT is a conditional generative surrogate for the Geant4 step function. It rep
 
 **Faster-eval architectures (implemented, validation in progress):** both tracks below target a ~10× native-Geant4 eval budget and are now wired into `giant train`/`giant/model/network.py`, but neither has a validated result yet — treat both as unproven until the corresponding analysis run says otherwise:
 - **WGAN-GP** (`--mode wgan`, see Architecture above): implemented, **not yet tested** — no rollout-vs-reference analysis run against it yet.
-- **MoE routing trunk** (`--router`, see Architecture above): implemented, **first rollout benchmark done (2026-07-22), result: needs retraining with a different router config, not abandoned.** A 10-expert `EnergyRouter` run (`n_experts=10`, `temperature=0.5`, `learn_centers=true`, **`lambda_balance=0.0`**, only 20 fine-tuning epochs resumed from a non-routed checkpoint) diverged badly from Geant4 on step granularity, secondary species, and shower shape, despite roughly matching bulk total deposited energy. The `router_gating` diagnostic plot points at the likely cause: the ten experts overlap heavily across ~5 decades of pre-step energy instead of partitioning it — even the top-energy expert only reaches ~60–65% gate weight at the highest energies plotted — so eval-time top-1 (Voronoi) dispatch is choosing among near-ties rather than real specialists. Leading suspect is the missing load-balancing loss (`lambda_balance=0.0`); the routing *strategy* itself may still be sound, but this specific config isn't. **Next step before further evaluation: retrain with `lambda_balance > 0` (and consider more epochs / a from-scratch run rather than a short fine-tune) and re-check whether `router_gating` sharpens up.** Full writeup: `/home/lars/knowledge-base/experiments/giant-router-energy-rollout-validation.md`.
+- **MoE routing trunk** (`--router`, see Architecture above): implemented, **first rollout benchmark done (2026-07-22), result: needs retraining with a different router config, not abandoned.** A 10-expert `EnergyRouter` run (`n_experts=10`, `temperature=0.5`, `learn_centers=true`, **`lambda_balance=0.0`**, only 20 fine-tuning epochs resumed from a non-routed checkpoint) diverged badly from Geant4 on step granularity, secondary species, and shower shape, despite roughly matching bulk total deposited energy. The `router_gating` diagnostic plot points at the likely cause: the ten experts overlap heavily across ~5 decades of pre-step energy instead of partitioning it — even the top-energy expert only reaches ~60–65% gate weight at the highest energies plotted — so eval-time top-1 (Voronoi) dispatch is choosing among near-ties rather than real specialists. Two contributors were identified: the missing load-balancing loss (`lambda_balance=0.0`), and `EnergyRouter`'s center init (`torch.linspace(-2, 2, n_experts)`) assuming a roughly uniform z-normalized energy distribution, which real energy spectra don't match. **Fixed (2026-07-27):** `EnergyRouter` now accepts an optional `centers_init` (backward compatible — omitting it keeps the old linspace), and `giant train` auto-populates it from real data quantiles via a reservoir sample collected during the existing normalizer-fitting pass in `giant/pipeline.py` (no extra file scan), for `--router-type energy` only. The routing *strategy* itself may still be sound, but the specific benchmarked config wasn't. **Next step before further evaluation: retrain with `lambda_balance > 0` and the new quantile-seeded centers (and consider more epochs / a from-scratch run rather than a short fine-tune), then re-check whether `router_gating` sharpens up.** Full writeup: `/home/lars/knowledge-base/experiments/giant-router-energy-rollout-validation.md`.
 
 A sampling-calorimeter (multi-material) dataset is still a planned future direction, not yet built. See the knowledge base (`/home/lars/knowledge-base/meta/roadmap.md`).