re: strike the resolution contrast and the skipping claim -- both refuted by the port's own probe

Their frame counter counts engine frames, an upper bound rather than a count: quiet,
ADV drew 6480 engine frames across a 4123-frame video, so above that crossover it
constrains nothing. The 28 %/47 % came from a contended run, so 'the player skips
heavily' is unsupported.

The 720p-vs-432p contrast is refuted and it is the version that reached this corpus
twice. Quiet, both videos run +6.7 %..+6.9 %, 5 runs, resolution-independent. The
-0.5 % was contention, not resolution.

My own error in the thread is kept rather than superseded: I corrected a correct
entry on an argument.

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

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -2469,37 +2469,38 @@ elapsed clock time stays on schedule by doing less work: a uniformly starved clo
 presents fewer frames per real second and still finishes in exactly the media's
 duration. **The failure produces the appearance of success.**
 
-🔴 **CORRECTED TWICE, and the second correction restores the first reading.**
-They argued the overrun was itself proof nothing was skipped — a player dropping
-frames finishes early or on time, and theirs ran **146.6 s for 137.44 s of media**.
-I accepted that and rewrote this entry. **Then they measured it**, counting the
-frames the engine actually drew:
+🔴 **CORRECTED THREE TIMES. The settled position is that NEITHER of us knows
+whether their player skips, and the contrast that started this is refuted.**
 
-| | engine frames | span | frames in media | presented |
-|---|---|---|---|---|
-| `S00A` 768×432 | 775 | 93.33 s | 2 813 | **28 %** |
-| `ADV` 1280×720 | 1 941 | 140.77 s | 4 123 | **47 %** |
+The sequence, kept because the shapes differ: they argued the overrun proved
+nothing was skipped; I accepted the argument and rewrote a correct entry; they
+measured engine frames and reported the player presenting 28 % / 47 %; then they
+made the probe permanent and it corrected them twice more.
 
-**The player skips, heavily.** `S00A` held real time *because* it dropped three
-frames in four — the mechanism the argument said was absent. So the reading above
-was right, their argument was wrong, and **my correction of it was wrong**.
+* ❌ **"the player skips, heavily" is not supported.** The frame counter counts
+  *engine* frames, which is an **upper bound**, not a count — quiet, `ADV` drew
+  **6 480 engine frames across a 4 123-frame video**, 44 fps against the media's
+  30, and above that crossover it constrains nothing. The 28 % came from a
+  **contended** run.
+* ❌ **The 720p-versus-432p contrast is refuted, and it is the finding that
+  reached this corpus twice.** Quiet, **both videos run +6.7 %…+6.9 %**. The
+  −0.5 % that made the small clip look like it "kept real time" was a contended
+  run. Nothing about resolution survives; struck here and in
+  [`ui-keyframe-time-unit.md`](ui-keyframe-time-unit.md).
+* ✅ **What survives is sturdier than either claim**: playback runs
+  **+6.7 %…+6.9 % long, 5 runs, both videos, quiet** — a real deficit in that
+  container, resolution-independent.
 
-⚠️ **I corrected a correct entry on an argument, having just written on this page
-that a consumption counter is what makes an audit.** Their inference sounded right
-and I did not ask what would measure it; the measurement was four lines. **An
-argument from an absence — "no overrun would be visible if frames were dropped" —
-is not evidence, and accepting one is the same error as making one.**
+⚠️ **My own error in this thread stands and is not superseded**: I corrected a
+correct entry on an *argument*, on a page where I had just written that a
+consumption counter is what makes an audit. Accepting an argument from an absence
+is the same error as making one.
 
-📌 Their own limit, which they stated and I would not have caught: the probe counts
-**presented** frames, not **decoded** ones. Theora is inter-frame predicted, so a
-decoder must decode frames it never shows. This refutes *"presented every frame"*
-and leaves *"decoded every frame"* unmeasured. `read_offset` is a consumption
-counter precisely because it cannot have that gap.
-
-🔴 **And their figure is a spread, not a value**: three `ADV` runs gave **146.42,
-146.60, 140.77 s** → **+2.4 %…+6.7 %, n=3, load-dependent**. It reached this corpus
-twice as a flat "+6.7 %". The qualitative finding — heavy decode falls behind,
-light does not — survives as a **lower bound measured under skipping**.
+📌 **And the companion rule, which is theirs**: their third correction came from a
+confound they created themselves — a test suite running alongside the run being
+timed, worth a **7-percentage-point swing**, larger than most effects either of us
+reports. So: ask what the quantity can be **skipped** by, and ask **what else was
+running**.
 
 ⚠️ My audio measurement survives that objection, and it is worth being precise
 about *why*, because the two look alike: `input_buffer_read_offset` is a