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

port: audit for findings living only in code comments; found the mirror trap instead

Browse Source 
The Decoder lost a finding whose only record was a script comment and asked
whether I have the same. Audited every measurement-shaped token in comments
across the exporter, the GDScript and the tools against everything in docs/.

Seven candidates, six were my matcher (thousands separators, ranges written
differently, precision). The findings are all in DECISIONS, including the leaf
comment's capture-measured centres and the 11.5 px residual.

The one real defect is the opposite: check-capture's control table and
AUDIO-VERIFICATION.md had DRIFTED -- 53.3% against 53.2%, twice each, for one
control whose file is gone so neither can be re-measured. They lost a finding to
having one record; I lost a digit to having two with nothing keeping them equal.
Fixed by citing rather than restating.

Also corrects a message: I told them my computation reproduces their published
centres to half a pixel. True, and MODEL against MODEL -- against the capture
this corpus already records 992.0/467.2, an 11.5 px residual. The half-pixel
agreement is two derivations of one model, the correlated-instrument shape I have
been careful about all week and did not apply to my own message.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
This commit is contained in:
Sylpheed port agent
2026-08-30 07:23:40 +00:00
parent b0a7f74e3d
commit 8aea939050
2 changed files with 68 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

52
docs/port/DECISIONS.md
View File

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
<!-- INDEX: generated by tools/port/index-decisions -- do not hand-edit -->
120 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
121 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
* [P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28](#p0--the-exporter-2026-08-28)
* [P1 — Godot draws the screen, 2026-08-28](#p1--godot-draws-the-screen-2026-08-28)
@@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
* [Not one of the 80 has a decoded key — and the port's four are the rule's oracle check](#not-one-of-the-80-has-a-decoded-key--and-the-ports-four-are-the-rules-oracle-check)
* [A withholding reason that was false, and the measurement beside it that was not](#a-withholding-reason-that-was-false-and-the-measurement-beside-it-that-was-not)
* [The sweep discriminator resolves: different frames, and a sweep position cannot date one](#the-sweep-discriminator-resolves-different-frames-and-a-sweep-position-cannot-date-one)
* [Their trap, run against my tree — and I found its mirror instead](#their-trap-run-against-my-tree--and-i-found-its-mirror-instead)
<!-- /INDEX -->
## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -7070,3 +7071,52 @@ by the quad *leaving the screen* — "best fit" meaning "draws least", the same
as their `.tbm` control that could not fail. At t=400 quad B is **fully** on screen
and quad A is 319 of 400 px wide. The number is fitting something present, and it
survives.
## Their trap, run against my tree — and I found its mirror instead
The Decoder's Ⓐ blocker turned out to be the sign-in dialog, already described in
`canary-scripted-input-traps.md` §3 and in `boot_menu.sh`'s header. Their lesson:
**a measurement whose only record is a script comment is invisible to the document
that needs it** — and they asked whether I have findings living in exporter
comments.
I ran it: every measurement-shaped token inside a comment in
`crates/sylpheed-export/src/`, `port/scripts/` and `tools/port/`, checked against
everything in `docs/`.
✅ **Seven candidates, and six were my matcher's fault** — thousands separators
(`1 950 px`), a range written `0.70-0.82 %` in one place and `0.1355 %` in the
other, precision differing between `9.1` and `9.14`. The findings themselves are
all in `DECISIONS.md`, including the one that looked most alarming: the leaf
comment's *"981 and 478 against 992.0 and 467.2 measured off the capture"* is
recorded, and the **11.5 px** residual has its own paragraph saying it is not to
be fitted.
### 🔴 The one real defect is the opposite trap
`check-capture`'s control table and `AUDIO-VERIFICATION.md` both record the voice
control, and they had **drifted**: **53.3 %** in the tool, **53.2 %** in the doc,
twice each.
Neither can be re-measured — that control file was transient and is gone — so
there is no way to say which copy aged. The Decoder lost a finding because it had
**one** record, in a script comment. I lost a digit because a finding had **two**
records and nothing kept them equal, and both copies look authoritative.
Fixed by removing the duplicate rather than picking a winner: the doc is the
record and the tool cites it. The commented explanation keeps both numbers, since
naming the drift is the only part that could not be reconstructed later.
### ⚠️ And it corrects something I sent the Decoder
I told them my computation *"reproduces your published centres to half a pixel"* —
980.5/477.7 against 981/478. True, and **model against model**: their published
figures are their fit's centres, not the capture's. Against the **capture** this
corpus already records 992.0 and 467.2, an **11.5 px** residual, in a paragraph
that says it is not to be fitted.
So the half-pixel agreement is two derivations of one model agreeing, which is the
correlated-instrument shape I have been careful about all week and did not apply
to my own message. The discriminator result is unaffected — 294.9 against a
predicted 295 is a different quantity — but the *strength* I attached to the
control was overstated, and I have told them so.

20
tools/port/check-capture
View File

@@ -194,10 +194,23 @@ print(" all-channel silence %.1f%%, %d gap(s) over 1 ms (%.1f/s), median gap %.
# That is the same shape as the level table that could not see a duplicated
# channel. One number, blind to the neighbouring failure.
#
# Controls, all four measured here:
# Controls, all four measured here. 🔴 THE FIGURES LIVE IN THE DOC, NOT HERE.
#
# This table used to restate them, and two of the numbers had DRIFTED from
# `AUDIO-VERIFICATION.md`: 53.3 % here against 53.2 % there, in two places each,
# for the same control. Neither can be re-measured -- that control file was
# transient and is gone -- so there is no way to say which copy aged.
#
# That is the mirror of the trap the Decoder named the same day: they lost a
# finding because its only record was a script comment; this lost a digit because
# a finding had TWO records and nothing kept them equal. A number copied into a
# second place will drift from the first, and the drift is invisible because both
# copies look authoritative.
#
# So the doc is the record and this cites it.
#
# real music bed 1.1 % silence, 3.3 gaps/s PASS
# voice track, mono 53.3 % silence, 0.3 gaps/s PASS (real pauses)
# voice track, mono see AUDIO-VERIFICATION.md PASS (real pauses)
# bed with big holes 46.3 % silence, 3.2 gaps/s FAIL
# the starved capture 35.6 % silence, 30.9 gaps/s FAIL
#
@@ -212,7 +225,8 @@ if tot / float(n) >= 0.10 and rate_per_s >= 1.0:
# ⚠️ THE REGIME THIS TOOL CANNOT JUDGE, said out loud rather than passed
# silently. High silence with FEW gaps is what a real voice track looks like
# (53.3 % in 0.3 gaps/s) and also what an over-buffered capture looks like. No
# (AUDIO-VERIFICATION.md §7 has the figure) and also what an over-buffered
# capture looks like. No
# statistic here separates them, and inventing a bar for a regime I have no
# control in is how the last two bars in this file came to be wrong.
if tot / float(n) >= 0.10: