diff --git a/docs/re/f6-out-of-sample-RESULT.md b/docs/re/f6-out-of-sample-RESULT.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..457ccbec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/re/f6-out-of-sample-RESULT.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# 🔴 Out-of-sample: **three of six predictions failed**
+
+The predictions are in
+[`f6-out-of-sample-prereg.md`](f6-out-of-sample-prereg.md), committed before the
+capture. One fresh no-input boot, `f6c`.
+
+| # | quantity | predicted | `f6c` | |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | `pteff03a` / `pteff03` period | 1.200 ±5 % | **1.1753** | ✅ |
+| 2 | strip length ratio | 1.333 ±6 % | **1.3009** | ✅ |
+| 3 | pulse period / sweep loop | 0.100 ±5 % | **0.0963** | ✅ |
+| 4 | pulse amplitude vs declared curve | ≤3 levels | **8.73** | 🔴 |
+| 5 | `ptcopyright` ramp / parent ramp | 0.733 ±8 % | **0.5500** | 🔴 |
+| 6 | sweep leads `ptbtn00f` | 0.138–0.141 loops | **0.0996** | 🔴 |
+
+## What holds
+
+**Everything sweep-internal, across three captures.** The two leaves' period
+ratio, their size ratio, and the pulse period as a fraction of the sweep loop all
+reproduce on a run that had no hand in deriving them. Those stay ✅.
+
+## What does not
+
+**The three plate-relative quantities.** And they fail *together and in the same
+direction*: 5 lands at 0.75× its prediction, 6 at 0.71×. That is not noise — the
+plate and `ptcopyright` both arrive earlier relative to the sweep in this run than
+in the two that produced the numbers.
+
+🔴 **So the sweep→plate separation is not a constant.** Three runs give
+**0.138, 0.141, 0.0996**. My published "0.138 and 0.141, agreeing to 2.2 %" was
+**n = 2**, and two runs agreeing is not reproducibility. The figure is withdrawn.
+
+⚠️ **The F6 conclusion survives; its number does not.** With no input the glow
+still clearly precedes the plate — 0.0996 of a loop is a wide margin — and with Ⓐ
+the two still coincide. What is dead is any specific value for the lead.
+
+## 🔴 And the check I built last iteration fails its first independent test
+
+`check_labels.py` was written to catch label drift, and I validated it on **the
+two captures that produced the labels**. On the first capture it did not see, two
+of its four checks fire.
+
+That is an instrument validated on its own training data — the same class as
+every other error this session, one level up. **A detector tuned on n = 2 and
+failing on n = 3 is not yet a detector**, and I presented it as one.
+
+I cannot yet say which of three causes is responsible, and I am not going to
+guess: the labels could be wrong in `f6c`, the tolerances could be fitted, or the
+game's plate timing could genuinely vary run to run. The diagnostic that would
+separate them is more captures — `n = 3` is where this became visible and `n = 3`
+is not enough to resolve it.
+
+## Reach
+
+Three captures, one screen, one emulator build. The sweep-internal results are
+now 3-for-3; the plate-relative ones are 0-for-1 out of sample after 2-for-2
+in-sample.