From 09af29f1dd62b5a726a4731e52568a77c013854e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: sylph-decoder Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 18:52:19 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: the symmetric audit -- port-sourced claims in my corpus are attributed sylpheed-port promoted my unverified "EXTRAS is stuck at n=1, a structural limit" out of a message into DECISIONS.md as an established fact, while holding the file that refuted it -- their own authored/flow.json, recording ptbtn11 -> GP_MISSION_SELECT. Their corollary is sharper than my original entry: distrust "structural" and "impossible" hardest when SOMEONE ELSE writes them, because they arrive without the doubt the author would have had. Swept this side for the same shape. It is clean: port-supplied figures are attributed in the text ("port reports 866 keyframes ... 0 untimed"), the ui_layout.rs comment on the unreachable fallback cites MY OWN measurement of 0 untimed of 24 811 across 965 builds rather than their 866, and their quantisation floor of 0.41 appears in no document of mine at all. Reach stated: this tests attribution WORDING and the port-supplied figures I could enumerate, not every reliance. A negative from a naive check is not proof of absence, and saying so is the point of recording it. What protected it was a habit rather than vigilance -- writing the source into the sentence. That is now the third instance of one remedy: state what the number is a number of; write the index space into the token (e10 rather than "build 10"); write the source into the claim. Put the qualifier in the text, never in the reader's memory. Also fixes the half-guard the port called out. The effective-config block reported `arming on` from screen_id.py, which cannot separate the main menu from EXTRAS -- so it announced "menu" while the run was armed on EXTRAS, a field the guard could not resolve for exactly the two screens in question. It now prints both that value AND the discriminator with its margin, so the ambiguity is visible rather than hidden. NOT yet verified in a run -- per the port's own --no-hold lesson, parsed and edited is not working. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v --- docs/re/METHOD.md | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ tools/re-capture/fade_decompose.sh | 10 +++++++++- 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/re/METHOD.md b/docs/re/METHOD.md index e790114e..f34dd67f 100644 --- a/docs/re/METHOD.md +++ b/docs/re/METHOD.md @@ -562,6 +562,25 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the nothing later re-opens them. The check here cost one `screen info` invocation against a claim I had already written into `HANDOFF.md` twice. + 📌 **And `sylpheed-port`'s corollary, which is the sharper half: distrust them + hardest when SOMEONE ELSE writes them**, because they arrive without the doubt + the author would have had. They copied my "EXTRAS is stuck at n=1 — a structural + limit" out of a message into `DECISIONS.md` as an established fact **while + holding the file that refuted it** — their own `authored/flow.json`, recording + `ptbtn11` → `GP_MISSION_SELECT`. The protocol says a message carries no evidence; + a sentence copied out of one is still a sentence from a message. + + ✅ **Swept this side for the same shape and it is clean** — port-supplied figures + are attributed in the text (`"port reports 866 keyframes … 0 untimed"`), the + `ui_layout.rs` comment cites **my own** 0-of-24 811 rather than their 866, and + their quantisation floor of 0.41 appears in no document of mine at all. + ⚠️ Reach: this tests *attribution wording* and the port-supplied figures I could + enumerate, not every reliance. 📌 **What protected it was a habit, not vigilance: + writing the source into the sentence.** That is the third instance of one + remedy — *state what the number is a number of*, *write the index space into the + token* (`e10`), *write the source into the claim*. Put the qualifier in the text, + never in the reader's memory. + ## Runtime / emulator * **Look at the PNG** — and check its dimensions. diff --git a/tools/re-capture/fade_decompose.sh b/tools/re-capture/fade_decompose.sh index 4d28f432..9347c633 100755 --- a/tools/re-capture/fade_decompose.sh +++ b/tools/re-capture/fade_decompose.sh @@ -177,7 +177,15 @@ echo "── EFFECTIVE CONFIG ──────────────── echo " requested WHERE = ${WHERE}" echo " branch taken = ${BRANCH:-}" echo " button to press = ${BTN}" -echo " arming on = $(screen)" +# ⚠️ `screen` is screen_id.py, which CANNOT tell the main menu from EXTRAS -- +# both are dark blue GP_TITLE screens. Reporting it alone announced "menu" while +# the run was armed on EXTRAS, i.e. a field the guard could not resolve for +# exactly the two screens in question. An announcement that cannot distinguish +# the cases it announces is only half a guard. Print both, and the discriminator +# with its margin, so the ambiguity is visible rather than hidden. +shot "$OUT/arming.png" +echo " arming on = $(screen) [screen_id: cannot separate menu/EXTRAS]" +echo " discriminator = $(python3 "$SD/which_title_screen.py" "$OUT/arming.png" 2>/dev/null || echo 'n/a — not a GP_TITLE screen')" echo "──────────────────────────────────────────────────" [ -n "${BRANCH:-}" ] || { echo "REFUSING: no branch announced itself"; exit 5; } xdotool windowactivate --sync "$win"; sleep 1