re: settle_time() itself beats rest() against the game -- on the one screen that adjudicates

Closes the gap the port named: it ran my proposal against captures 3/3 in favour,
but tested ITS OWN settled pose rather than UiBuild::settle_time().

Geometry established first, because my first attempt got it wrong: a 1280x720
render meets a 1279x675 capture by CROP, not scale -- crop rows 0..675 gives RMSE
14.07 against 68.89 resized and 79.61 for the 45-row crop. The 45-row offset
holds for a full display frame; these captures are already the game surface.

Gamma fitted per pose so neither candidate can win on the fit:

  title      settle  g=0.84  RMSE  8.17  15.28 % >8
  title      rest    g=1.04  RMSE 20.92  70.84 % >8

The two splashes DO NOT ADJUDICATE and are not counted: their gamma fit rails at
the edge of the search range, still railing when widened to 0.30..3.00, so the
photometric model is wrong for them -- and with gamma railed their margins
collapse to 1.16x and 1.06x.

title adjudicates at an interior gamma and does so decisively, 4.6x on differing
area and 2.6x on RMSE. So the IMPLEMENTATION and not merely the direction is
supported.

Absolute agreement is poor -- the port's settled title row is 0.21 % where mine
is 15.28 % -- so the ordering is what this table carries, not the values. The
port's three-screen result remains the stronger evidence.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md

@@ -352,7 +352,49 @@ is wrong"*.
 the thing under suspicion.** No care with this control fixes that; it is the wrong
 shape of experiment.
 
-✅ **What adjudicates is the oracle, and it is the port agent's measurement, not
+### ✅ Closing the gap: `settle_time()` itself, against the game
+
+The port ran the proposal against captures and favoured it 3/3 — but tested **its
+own** settled pose, not `UiBuild::settle_time()`, and said so. That gap is this
+crate's to close
+([`../data/settle-vs-rest-against-captures.txt`](../data/settle-vs-rest-against-captures.txt)).
+
+**Geometry first, because the first attempt got it wrong.** A 1280×720 render meets
+a 1279×675 capture by **crop, not scale**:
+
+| convention | RMSE |
+|---|---|
+| **crop rows 0…675** | **14.07** |
+| resize bilinear | 68.89 |
+| crop rows 45…720 | 79.61 |
+
+⚠️ The 45-row offset holds for a full **display** frame; these committed captures are
+already the game surface.
+
+Gamma is fitted **per pose**, so each candidate gets its own best case and the
+comparison cannot be won by the fit:
+
+| screen | pose | γ | RMSE | % > 8 |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| **title** | **settle** | 0.84 | **8.17** | **15.28** |
+| title | rest | 1.04 | 20.92 | 70.84 |
+| publisher | settle / rest | **0.30 — railed** | 36.38 / 36.69 | 2.36 / 2.74 |
+| developer | settle / rest | **0.30 — railed** | 33.07 / 33.42 | 6.16 / 6.54 |
+
+🔴 **The two splashes do not adjudicate and are not counted.** Their gamma fit sits
+on the **edge of the search range** — widened to 0.30–3.00 and it still rails — so
+the photometric model is wrong for them, and with γ railed the margins collapse to
+1.16× and 1.06×.
+
+✅ **`title` does adjudicate**, at an *interior* γ, and decisively: **15.28 % against
+70.84 %** differing (4.6×), RMSE **8.17 against 20.92** (2.6×). So **the
+implementation and not merely the direction** is supported.
+
+⚠️ Absolute agreement is poor — the port's settled `title` row is 0.21 % where mine
+is 15.28 %. Its renderer draws things mine does not and a single global gamma is a
+crude model. **Take the ordering from this table, not the values.**
+
+✅ **The stronger evidence remains the oracle, and it is the port agent's, not
 mine**: its publisher splash against a committed capture, **settle-instant pose RMSE
 2.17 / 0.01 % differing** against **`--pose=rest` 9.05 / 0.75 %** — 75× the
 differing area, against the game. **That** is the evidence for the proposal; the