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

re: WITHDRAW "the guest presents at 30 fps" -- the clean result WAS the failure mode

Browse Source 
Published this morning, withdrawn the same day. The measurement was real;
the inference was not established.

My own pre-registration named three ways the instrument could lie and
guarded two. The third -- "the guest may be frame-locked to its own
presentation rather than to the movie clock" -- is the one that occurred,
and a perfect 1.0000 is exactly what it produces: a triple buffer rotating
once per present gives run-length 1 at ANY frame rate. So the measurement
cannot separate a 30 fps guest decoding one movie frame per present from a
60 fps guest rotating a buffer per present.

The methodological error is the part worth keeping. I wrote the guard down,
saw a result so clean it had no tail, and read the cleanness as strength. A
clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is not
confirmation -- the cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature. Both
guards I did build tested how the buffer was READ; neither tested whether a
buffer change means a decode.

What surfaced it: the draw log carries a per-frame gtick marker I had not
noticed. It is host time rescaled (Clock::QueryGuestTickCount is
host_tick_count * guest_tick_ratio, scalar 1.0), so it is a wall clock and
cannot be read as a rate -- but its SHAPE has no phase. Xenia locks vblank
to 60 Hz, and the present interval is ONE vblank 71.7% of the time and two
24.6%. A guest hard-locked to 30 fps presents every second vblank and would
put the mass at 2.

I am NOT replacing it with 120. Three routes now disagree: the withdrawn
movie cadence says 60, the vblank cadence says ~120, and
title-plate-delay's 120 declared units in 2.13 s measured twice to 6 ms
says ~56. Two of the three must be wrong and I do not know which.
Publishing 120 would repeat the mistake this commit withdraws.

The port is told to keep 60 for now, and told plainly that it is an
authored value rather than a measured one.

The settling experiment is named: hash the movie luma plane's CONTENTS per
present rather than its base address, which separates "the buffer rotated"
from "a frame was decoded".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-09-01 19:11:05 +00:00
parent fa27509937
commit ca401d8b04
3 changed files with 187 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
docs/port/HANDOFF.md
View File

@@ -500,7 +500,46 @@ constructed in `sub_8220B610` and released in `sub_821A6470`. A *decoder* betwee
live. That is the next read.
---
## ✅✅ 2026-09-01 (eighth) — **KEEP YOUR 60.** The guest presents at 30 fps, measured against a ruler that is not a clock
## ❌❌ 2026-09-01 (ninth) — **I WITHDRAW the section below. Do NOT act on "keep your 60" — but do NOT change it either**
[`../re/guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md`](../re/guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md) ·
[interval data](../re/data/present-interval-vs-vblank.txt)
I published "the guest presents at 30 fps, so 60 units/s" and told you to change
nothing. **The measurement was real; the inference was not established**, and the
flaw is one I wrote into my own pre-registration and then failed to apply.
The unguarded assumption was *"the guest may be frame-locked to its own
presentation rather than to the movie clock."* **A perfect 1.0000 is exactly what
that produces** — a buffer rotating once per present gives run-length 1 at any
frame rate. So the cleanness I read as strength is equally the signature of the
failure mode. **A clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded
is not confirmation.**
What surfaced it: the draw log carries a per-frame `gtick` marker. Xenia locks
vblank to 60 Hz, and the interval between guest presents is **one** vblank 71.7 %
of the time and two 24.6 % — a guest hard-locked to 30 fps would put the mass at
two. The tail at 2+ is dropped frames, the only direction a slow emulator can push.
🔴 **But I am NOT telling you 120.** Three routes now disagree:
| route | says | plate at `t=236` |
|---|---|---|
| movie cadence (withdrawn) | 60 units/s | 3.93 s |
| present interval vs vblank | ~120 units/s | 1.97 s |
| `title-plate-delay` — 120 units in 2.13 s, twice, to 6 ms | ~56 units/s | ~4.2 s |
Two of the three must be wrong and I do not know which. **Keep your 60 for now** —
not because I have shown it right, but because changing it on my second guess in
one day is worse. It is now an authored value, not a measured one, and you should
know which.
The settling experiment is named in the finding: hash the movie luma plane's
*contents* per present rather than its base address, which separates "the buffer
rotated" from "a frame was decoded". The logger needs a small extension for it.
---
## ❌ 2026-09-01 (eighth) — WITHDRAWN, see above. ~~KEEP YOUR 60. The guest presents at 30 fps~~
[`../re/guest-frame-rate-measured.md`](../re/guest-frame-rate-measured.md) ·
[pre-registration](../re/guest-frame-rate-preregistration.md) ·

40
docs/re/data/present-interval-vs-vblank.txt Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
# Interval between guest PRESENTS, from the draw log's own per-frame
# gtick marker. Same capture as guest-frame-rate-cadence.txt.
#
# ⚠️ gtick is NOT guest-intended time. Canary's Clock::QueryGuestTickCount()
# is `host_tick_count * guest_tick_ratio` with the scalar at 1.0, i.e. HOST
# time rescaled. So these are wall-clock intervals and TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION
# applies to them in full.
#
# What they are good for is the SHAPE. Xenia locks vblank to 60 Hz when
# vsync is on and framerate_limit is 0 (graphics_system.cc: 'If VSYNC is
# enabled, but frames are not limited, lock framerate at default value of
# 60'). So the question with no phase in it is: does the guest present once
# per vblank (16.7 ms) or once per two (33.3 ms)?
frames 1..599 intervals n=594
span 671,751,499 ticks = 13.435 host-seconds
overall 44.21 presents per host-second
min 14.94 ms
Q1 16.47 ms
median 17.22 ms <-- the mode of the distribution
Q3 30.43 ms
max 157.20 ms
histogram, in units of one 60 Hz vblank (16.667 ms):
1 vblank(s) ( 16.67 ms) : 426 ############################################################
2 vblank(s) ( 33.33 ms) : 146 ############################################################
3 vblank(s) ( 50.00 ms) : 12 ############
4 vblank(s) ( 66.67 ms) : 4 ####
5 vblank(s) ( 83.34 ms) : 3 ###
6 vblank(s) (100.00 ms) : 2 ##
9 vblank(s) (150.00 ms) : 1 #
ONE vblank : 426/594 = 71.7%
TWO vblanks: 146/594 = 24.6%
# A guest hard-locked to 30 fps presents every SECOND vblank and would put
# the mass at 2. It is at 1. The tail at 2+ is dropped frames, which is the
# expected direction for a slow emulator -- a slow emulator cannot make
# intervals SHORTER than the guest asked for.

107
docs/re/guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
# 🔴 WITHDRAWN — "the guest presents at 30 fps, so 60 units/s"
**Status: ❌ withdrawn by its own author, 2026-09-01, the same day it was
published.** The measurement was real; the **inference from it was not
established**, and the flaw is one I named in my own pre-registration and then
failed to apply when the data came back clean.
Supersedes the verdict in
[`guest-frame-rate-measured.md`](guest-frame-rate-measured.md). The data in that
page stands; its conclusion does not.
---
## What I claimed
That counting presented frames per decoded `ADV.wmv` movie frame gives
`guest_fps / 30`, that it measured **1.0000**, and therefore that the guest
presents at 30 fps and the UI clock runs at **60 units/s**. I told the port
"keep your 60, change nothing."
## Why it does not hold
My own pre-registration listed three ways the instrument could lie and guarded
two. The third was:
> *"**The movie is not playing at its declared rate** because the guest is
> frame-locked to its own presentation instead of to the movie clock. This is the
> assumption the whole method rests on and it is **not** guarded."*
**That is the one that occurred, and a perfect 1.0000 is exactly what it
produces.** A guest that advances the movie's buffer once per present — whether
or not a new frame was decoded — yields run-length 1 at *any* presentation rate.
So the cleanliness I read as confirmation is equally the signature of the failure
mode, and the measurement cannot separate:
* a 30 fps guest decoding one movie frame per present, from
* a 60 fps guest rotating a triple buffer once per present.
🔴 **The methodological error is the part worth keeping.** I wrote the guard down,
saw a result so clean it had no tail at all, and treated the cleanness as
strength. **A clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is
not confirmation — the cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature.** The
guards I *did* build (buffer-cycle shape, run-length distribution) both tested the
reading of the buffer, and neither tested whether a buffer change means a decode.
## The evidence that surfaced it
The draw log carries a per-frame `gtick`/`gfreq` marker I had not noticed. It is
**not** guest-intended time — Canary's `Clock::QueryGuestTickCount()` is
`host_tick_count * guest_tick_ratio` with the scalar at 1.0, i.e. host time
rescaled — so it is a wall clock and cannot be read as a rate.
But its **shape** has no phase in it. Xenia locks vblank to 60 Hz when vsync is on
and `framerate_limit` is 0 (`graphics_system.cc`: *"If VSYNC is enabled, but
frames are not limited, lock framerate at default value of 60"*). So:
```
interval between presents, in units of one 60 Hz vblank
1 vblank ( 16.67 ms) : 426 71.7%
2 vblanks( 33.33 ms) : 146 24.6%
3+ : 22 3.7%
```
[`data/present-interval-vs-vblank.txt`](data/present-interval-vs-vblank.txt)
**A guest hard-locked to 30 fps presents every SECOND vblank and would put the
mass at 2. It is at 1.** The tail at 2+ is dropped frames, which is the only
direction a slow emulator can push: it cannot make an interval *shorter* than the
guest asked for.
## 🔴 So what is the answer? OPEN — and I am not replacing one over-claim with another
The vblank cadence favours **60 fps ⇒ 120 units/s**, which would put the plate at
**1.97 s** and make the port ~2 s late — matching the play-test. But it does not
settle it, because a **third** measurement disagrees with both:
| route | says |
|---|---|
| movie cadence (withdrawn above) | 60 units/s |
| present interval vs vblank (this page) | ~120 units/s |
| `title-plate-delay-measured.md` — 120 declared units in **2.13 s**, twice, agreeing to 6 ms | **~56 units/s** |
The third is a wall-clock reading, but two runs agreeing to 6 ms is not nothing,
and 56 is a factor of **2.13** from 120. **Two of these three must be wrong** and I
do not know which. Publishing 120 now would repeat exactly the mistake this page
withdraws.
## The experiment that would settle it
Distinguish "the buffer rotated" from "a new frame was decoded": **hash the movie
luma plane's contents per present**, not its base address. Identical content on
consecutive presents ⇒ rotation without decode ⇒ 60 fps guest. Changing content
every present ⇒ genuine 30 fps decode ⇒ the movie ruler was valid after all.
The draw logger dumps texture *bases*, not contents, so this needs the logger
extended — `/canary` is read-write and the change is small.
Second, independent, and cheaper: the **UI clock's own advance per present** is
already measured at 2 units. What is unmeasured is whether the *animation* ticks
once per present or once per two. The splash alpha data needed for that is in the
`vb=` vertex dump this same log carries and which I have not yet parsed.
## What the port should do
**Nothing yet, and I have told them so.** Their 60 is no longer *supported* by me,
but it is not *refuted* either — one route favours 120 and another favours 56. A
port that changes on this page would be acting on my second guess in one day.