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

handoff+re: correct unit 10's quoted range; pulse ratio verified

Browse Source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-09-02 21:10:45 +00:00
parent 8cc38ee16e
commit 8fda94c43f
2 changed files with 29 additions and 3 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
docs/port/HANDOFF.md
View File

@@ -6220,3 +6220,23 @@ challenge rather than as my confirmation.
⚠️ Not re-checked against the new reader: unit 10's alpha decomposition and the
`ptbtn00f` pulse ratio. Both look safe and neither is verified.
## Re-ran both flagged findings (`8cc38ee`)
`docs/re/reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md`.
✅ **The pulse ratio holds — your independent leg is safe.** `f6b` 0.1000 over 16
clean cycles, `f6` 0.0993. 60 leaf units × 2 = 120 title units = `ptbtn00f`'s
declared loop. `rate = 0.5` keeps three legs, one of them independent.
🟡 **Unit 10's conclusion survives; its numbers did not.** I quoted the implied
parent as 254.0–256.9 / 253.9–254.9. Those were the **rows I printed** — every
20th frame — not the series. First-cycle truth: **250.9–260.5** (n=1128) and
**253.1–255.0** (n=560). Still flat ~254 while the drawn alpha swings 8→255→132,
so the parent multiplies in and the F6 gate is unaffected.
Post-wrap the spread widens to 237–283 **only in `f6`**, the run with dropped
frames; `f6b` holds at median 254.3. That is my phase model drifting, not the
parent — a varying parent would degrade in both. **Do not use my post-wrap
decomposition for anything**; a per-cycle phase fit would be needed and I have
not done it.

12
docs/re/f6-unit10-parent-alpha-gates-the-sweep.md
View File

@@ -35,9 +35,15 @@ alone predicts the wrong direction — the control could have flattered the
hypothesis and did not.
Decomposing `observed = parent × leaf / 255` using the leaf's declared curve, the
implied parent **ramps up and then pins at 255.0 and holds**: 254.0–256.9 (f6)
and 253.9–254.9 (f6b) across hundreds of frames, while the observed alpha swings
242 → 132 → 145. Over that whole swing the leaf's declared curve predicts the
implied parent **ramps up and then pins at ~254 and holds** across hundreds of
frames while the observed alpha swings 242 → 132 → 145.
> 🔴 **Numbers corrected** by
> [`reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md`](reverify-pulse-and-decomposition.md).
> This page first said 254.0–256.9 and 253.9–254.9; those were the sampled rows
> I printed, not the series. First-cycle truth: **250.9–260.5** (f6, n=1128) and
> **253.1–255.0** (f6b, n=560). The conclusion is unchanged and restricted to
> the first cycle. Over that whole swing the leaf's declared curve predicts the
drawn alpha **to within one alpha level**.
A flat 255.0 residual across a large excursion is the part that could have