port: the re-opened rest() pair reaches nothing we draw, and 60 units/s is authored now

Two things, and both are about a label being wrong rather than a value.

1. THE rest() PAIR IS MOOT FOR THIS PORT, and that is measured rather than
waited on. R1 re-opened both legs, 8 further claims died with the
⟨render-vs-capture⟩ instrument, and ScreenView.settle_time() uses rest.t -- so
this port has been sitting on a question with no instrument behind either side.

An element reaches the plateau-less fallback exactly when no two consecutive
keyframes are identical. Census over all sixteen screens at every nesting depth:
FIVE elements, three distinct -- palogo_sqex_eff, palogo_anima_eff, ptlogo_eff3,
plus two region twins.

And every one of them is transparent where its rest pose is read:

  publisher_logo   t=140         not drawn: palogo_sqex_eff  (transparent)
  developer_logos  t=117         not drawn: palogo_anima_eff (transparent)
  title_jp         --pose=rest   not drawn: ptlogo_eff3      (transparent)

So no rest() rule -- plateau-plus-dwell, `last`, `maxalpha` or `lastall` -- can
change any pixel this port draws. That is why the splash rows score 0.01 %
against their captures while resting on a heuristic nobody can currently defend:
it is not load-bearing there.

🔴 And the brief's "the two splashes are the ONLY screens reaching that fallback"
is narrowly refuted -- title_jp reaches it too, via ptlogo_eff3. Stated as a
measurement of the CURRENT export: the record-layout fix re-timed keyframes
corpus-wide and a plateau is exactly what that could create or destroy, so this
does not say the claim was wrong when written.

⚠️ It does NOT rehabilitate rest.t, still wrong for transients like
ptlogo_back2eff1 whose rest.t=54 is a two-frame flash's PEAK. That is a plateau
case, not a fallback case, and nothing here touches it.

2. keyframe_units_per_second RECLASSIFIED measured -> authored. The value does not
move; the label was false. The Decoder withdrew their guest-frame-rate finding
the same day they published it, and this file carried `kind: measured` on its
strength. Three routes now disagree -- withdrawn movie cadence 60, vblank ~120,
title-plate-delay ~56 -- and at most one is right.

60 is kept, and not as a coin toss: the one leg of this file's own reasoning that
never touched a frame count still brackets it. The transition quad is declared
black for 12 units and the capture measured 0.14-0.30 s, i.e. 40-86 units/s. 60
sits inside; 120 does not; ~56 is 7 % away and inside the same bracket.

🔴 audit-kinds caught my first attempt at this, DANGLING: I cited
guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md, which is on their branch and not in my checkout --
citing a document I cannot read. The check doing exactly its job. The withdrawal
is now named in prose and labelled as coming from their message.

📌 Their method note is worth more than the number and is recorded in the file:
their pre-registration named three ways the ruler could lie and guarded two; the
third occurred, and a PERFECT 1.0000 is precisely what it produces. A clean result
on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is not confirmation -- the
cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature. Same family as this port's
non-inverting latch check, which passed for the wrong reason until its control
failed.

Not settled: finding 3 still has no surviving cause; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual
against the additive-capable reference; pgloading_loop5's own residual; and the
allowance still waits on its grep trigger.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX

authored/timing.json

@@ -90,10 +90,52 @@
   "screen' is a claim about the format, and the title's 56.8 does sit ~5 % off the",
   "splashes' 58-61. If a per-screen rate is real this file should carry a MECHANISM",
   "-- a field or a GamePart constant -- not two authored numbers. The Decoder has",
-  "'where the per-GamePart rate comes from' as its next item."
+  "'where the per-GamePart rate comes from' as its next item.",
+  "",
+  "🔴 2026-09-01 (later still) — RECLASSIFIED measured -> authored. THE VALUE DOES",
+  "NOT MOVE; THE LABEL WAS FALSE.",
+  "",
+  "The Decoder withdrew their guest-frame-rate finding the same day they published",
+  "it. ⚠️ THAT DOCUMENT IS NOT IN THIS CHECKOUT -- it is `guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md`",
+  "on their branch, named here in prose deliberately rather than in `source`:",
+  "`audit-kinds` flagged the first version of this entry DANGLING because I cited",
+  "a file I cannot read, which is exactly the check doing its job. The reading",
+  "below is from their message and is labelled as such.",
+  "It read the guest's presentation as 30 fps from a movie-frame ruler and",
+  "concluded 2 x 30 = 60. This file carried `kind: measured` on that strength.",
+  "`kind: measured` on the strength of it. It cannot any more.",
+  "",
+  "Three routes now disagree and at most one can be right:",
+  "",
+  "  withdrawn movie cadence          60 units/s",
+  "  vblank cadence (Xenia, 60 Hz)   ~120",
+  "  title-plate-delay, 120 units      ~56   -- two runs agreeing to 6 ms",
+  "",
+  "⚠️ 60 IS KEPT ANYWAY, and it is not a coin toss between the three. The one leg",
+  "of this file's own reasoning that never touched a frame count still stands and",
+  "still brackets it: the transition quad is declared black for 12 units and the",
+  "capture measured the plateau at 0.14-0.30 s, i.e. 40-86 units/s. 60 sits inside",
+  "that; 120 does not. And ~56 is 7 % from 60, inside the same bracket.",
+  "",
+  "So the honest statement is: 60 is AUTHORED, bracketed by one surviving",
+  "frame-free measurement, and consistent with the nearest of the three live",
+  "routes. It is no longer 'measured', and anything that cited it as measured is",
+  "citing a withdrawal.",
+  "",
+  "📌 THE METHOD NOTE IS WORTH MORE THAN THE NUMBER, and it is the Decoder's: their",
+  "pre-registration named three ways the ruler could lie and guarded two. The third",
+  "occurred, and a PERFECT 1.0000 is exactly what it produces -- a triple buffer",
+  "rotating once per present gives run-length 1 at any frame rate. Both guards",
+  "tested how the buffer was READ, neither tested whether a change meant a decode.",
+  "",
+  "  A clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is not",
+  "  confirmation. The cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature.",
+  "",
+  "Same family as this port's non-inverting latch check, which passed for the wrong",
+  "reason until its control failed."
  ],
- "kind": "measured",
- "source": "/reborn docs/port/HANDOFF.md Q1, docs/re/ui-keyframe-time-unit.md, docs/re/units-per-second-measured.md",
+ "kind": "authored",
+ "source": "docs/re/ui-keyframe-time-unit.md, docs/port/HANDOFF.md",
  "ramp": "linear",
  "ramp_why": [
   "Also HANDOFF Q1, and part of the same measurement: the fade lands on the",