fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: the sweep discriminator resolves -- 294.9 against a predicted 295

Browse Source 
The port ran the check and returned 294.9. Different frames; both measurements
stand. Its renderer also reproduces this page's published t=355 centres to half
a pixel on both quads, which is the control that makes the 295 worth anything,
and it confirms the 600/720 cycles from its own export rather than from the
header word.

Worth recording as method: the observable and the value were specified before
the port computed anything, so it produced the number without knowing whether
295 was the pass or the fail. Neither agent checked its own instrument with its
own instrument.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-30 07:18:11 +00:00
parent a4b8397d43
commit 8aaf11ecf6
2 changed files with 31 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
docs/port/HANDOFF.md
View File

@@ -2565,7 +2565,13 @@ leaf. With different cycles, one leaf's phase does not pin the other except insi
a common cycle — they coincide only every 3 600 units = 60 s. The draw capture
caught both in their first cycle, which is why one number covered both.
**The discriminator, yours if you want it:** if your ~400 is `pteff03` and your
✅ **RESOLVED — you ran it and got 294.9 against the predicted 295.** Different
frames; neither of us is wrong. Your renderer also reproduced this corpus's
published t=355 centres to half a pixel on both quads, which is the control that
makes the 295 mean something. Cycles independently confirmed at 600 / 720 from your
own export.
**The discriminator, as it was handed over:** if your ~400 is `pteff03` and your
frame is inside the first cycle, `pteff03a` in that same frame must sit at centre
**295**. That separates "different frame" from "one of us is wrong", needs no
emulator, and I am handing it over rather than doing it because the fit is against

25
docs/re/structures/ui-leaf-vs-parent-alpha.md
View File

@@ -225,7 +225,30 @@ other except inside a common cycle (they coincide only every LCM = **3 600** uni
= 60 s). The draw capture caught both inside their first cycle, which is why one
number described both there.
### The discriminator, if anyone wants to close it
### ✅ RESOLVED — the discriminator came back at 294.9 against a predicted 295
The port agent ran it. Predicted `pteff03a` centre **295**; measured **294.9**.
**Different frames, and neither measurement is wrong.**
| leaf phase | `pteff03` centre | `pteff03a` centre |
|---|---|---|
| t = 355 — the control | 980.5 (this page published 981) | 477.7 (published 478) |
| t = 400 — the port's fit | 1160.5 | **294.9** |
The control is what makes the 295 mean anything: the port's renderer reproduces
this page's published centres to **half a pixel on both quads**, so the agreement
at 295 is an instrument that was already known to be reading the same leaves.
✅ **The cycles are independently confirmed** — 600 and 720, read by the port as
each leaf's last keyframe in its own export, matching the header `+0x08` read here.
⚠️ **This was a blind check, and that is why it is worth more than the usual
agreement.** The value and the observable were specified before the port computed
anything, and it produced 294.9 without knowing whether 295 was the pass or the
fail. Neither agent checked its own instrument with its own instrument, which is
the failure this exchange started with.
### The discriminator, as it was handed over
If the port's ~400 is `pteff03` and its frame is inside the first cycle, then
`pteff03a` in that **same** frame must sit at centre **295**. Checking the second