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

re: measure the capture-phase term -- 4.6 whole-frame, 0.32 in-box

Browse Source 
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) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-30 16:04:12 +00:00
parent 75543559e2
commit bfd3efe111
1 changed files with 34 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

34
docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md
View File

@@ -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) |