From bfd3efe111e93c6720caaeef84ff3c0056f515ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: sylph-decoder Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 16:04:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: measure the capture-phase term -- 4.6 whole-frame, 0.32 in-box sylpheed-port overturned their own phase-0 result using the identical-leaves fact I gave them: the same leaf minimises at phase 240 against a title capture and 0 against a main_menu capture, so the best-matching phase is a property of when the shutter fell rather than of the game's rest state. A continuously sweeping element has no canonical rest phase. They warned that any whole-frame score against a single capture carries a phase term of ~1.0 RMSE. Measured on my own two JP sessions, which certainly differ in sweep phase (44 025 px differ in the band the leaf crosses): whole frame 4.566 sweep band x721..1241 4.088 the adjudication box 0.3215 Their ~1.0 understates it for this screen: a whole-frame score against one capture of the JP title carries ~4.6. Theirs is the leaf-phase component isolated in a renderer; mine is everything that varies between sessions -- the plate pulse alone contributes ~2.8, measured separately on the EN peak/trough pair -- and includes theirs. My margins are unaffected and now for a measured reason rather than an assumed one. The era margin of 16.72 sits against an in-box term of 0.32, and settle-vs-rest at 1.48 is 4.6x that term while remaining non-decisive against the render-axis plateau of 1.2, exactly as stated. Scoring the 388x423 box rather than the frame drops the between-session term from 4.566 to 0.3215, a factor of 14, because the sweep contributes at x 721..1241 and the box is mostly clear of it. That was NOT why I cropped -- the crop was to stop a local difference being diluted across 92 % of an identical frame -- so the robustness is luck. The rule it earns: score inside a region that excludes the free-running elements, and measure the residual term there rather than estimating it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v --- docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md b/docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md index 14155eb0..b825d9a0 100644 --- a/docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md +++ b/docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md @@ -120,6 +120,40 @@ moved 0.001, against an in-box capture noise of 0.32. A margin between two rende scored on one capture is far more robust than either score is — which is why the render axis, not the capture axis, is the binding constraint here. +### ✅ The capture-phase term, measured — and why the box was the right choice + +`sylpheed-port` overturned their own phase-0 result using the identical-leaves +fact: sweeping the *same* leaf against a `title` capture minimises at phase 240 +where `main_menu` minimises at 0, so **the best-matching phase is a property of +when the shutter fell, not of the game's rest state**. A continuously sweeping +element has no canonical rest phase. They then warned that any whole-frame score +against a single capture carries an irreducible phase term of ~1.0 RMSE. + +That term is measurable on my own two JP sessions, which certainly differed in +sweep phase — 44 025 px differ in the band the leaf crosses: + +| region scored | between-session RMSE | +|---|---| +| **whole frame** | **4.566** | +| the sweep band, x 721..1241 | 4.088 | +| **the adjudication box** | **0.3215** | + +⚠️ **Their ~1.0 understates it for this screen.** A whole-frame score against one +capture of the JP title carries **~4.6**, not ~1.0 — theirs is the leaf-phase +component isolated in a renderer, mine is everything that varies between sessions +(the plate pulse alone contributes ~2.8, measured separately on the EN pair) and +includes theirs. Anyone quoting a whole-frame number on this screen should use the +larger figure. + +📌 **And it is why the box matters more than I realised when I chose it.** Scoring +the 388×423 region rather than the frame drops the between-session term from 4.566 +to **0.3215** — a factor of 14 — because the sweep contributes at x 721..1241 and +the box is mostly clear of it. That was not the reason I cropped (the crop was to +avoid diluting a local difference across 92 % of an identical frame), so the +robustness is luck. **The general rule it earns: score inside a region that +excludes the free-running elements, and *measure* the residual term there rather +than estimating it.** + **So the margins re-stated against every noise floor now measured:** | comparison | margin | render noise (1.2) | in-box capture noise (0.32) |