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

re: the crop is not why the box is robust -- and it questions "the leaf free-runs"

Browse Source 
sylpheed-port could not transfer the masking rule to their screens and inferred a
precondition: my free-running element is a localised plate I can crop around,
theirs is a wide sweep they cannot. Tested against my own screen, that is wrong.
The JP title carries the SAME sweep -- the leaves are identical on entries 4, 5
and 7, which I established last iteration -- and it crosses the box:

  two renders of build 7 on the settled plateau, t=135 vs t=240
    whole frame  RMSE 12.135   95 791 px
    in the box   RMSE 11.923   57 981 px      <- the sweep IS inside the box
    differences span y 70..674, x 128..1140; the box is y 54..476, x 389..776

So the crop did not exclude the mover, and the in-box between-session term of
0.3215 has no explanation in the crop. Which leaves a tension worth stating:

  two RENDERS one plateau-phase apart differ by 11.9 inside the box;
  two CAPTURES of that screen from different sessions differ by 0.32 there;
  and the --at sweep of renders against a capture is flat to 1.2 across
  t=135..240, despite those renders differing from each other by 11.9.

A metric cannot be insensitive to an 11.9 change unless what changed is largely
absent from what it is compared against.

Hypothesis, recorded as untested: the game may not draw these leaves on the
settled title at all, while our renderer poses them wherever --at says. That
would explain the flat plateau, the tiny between-session term and part of the ~40
residual together. It would also mean the port's "the leaf free-runs in the game
too" is not established by their evidence -- their two minima come from two
DIFFERENT screens, which can differ for reasons other than phase, whereas my two
captures are of the same screen and barely differ where the sweep would be.

Not claiming the leaves are invisible; that needs a draw-stream check for
pteff03/pteff03a on a settled title, which is one run. What is established is
narrower and enough to stop the inference.

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 16:09:55 +00:00
parent bfd3efe111
commit dc76367610
1 changed files with 42 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

42
docs/re/structures/ui-resting-pose.md
View File

@@ -145,6 +145,48 @@ component isolated in a renderer, mine is everything that varies between session
includes theirs. Anyone quoting a whole-frame number on this screen should use the
larger figure.
### 🔴 The crop is NOT why the box is robust — and that questions "the leaf free-runs in the game"
`sylpheed-port` could not transfer the masking rule to their screens and inferred
a precondition: *my* free-running element is a localised plate I can crop around,
theirs is a wide sweep they cannot. **Tested, and that is wrong about my case.**
The JP title carries the *same* sweep — the leaves are identical on entries 4, 5
and 7 — and it crosses the box:
```
two renders of build 7 on the settled plateau, t=135 vs t=240
whole frame RMSE 12.135 95 791 px differ
in the box RMSE 11.923 57 981 px <- the sweep is INSIDE the box
differences span y 70..674, x 128..1140; the box is y 54..476, x 389..776
```
So cropping did not exclude the mover, and the in-box between-session term of
**0.3215** is not explained by the crop. That leaves a real tension:
* two **renders** one plateau-phase apart differ by **11.9** inside the box;
* two **captures** of that screen, different sessions, differ by **0.32** there;
* and the `--at` sweep of renders against a capture is **flat to 1.2** across
t=135..240, despite those renders differing from each other by 11.9.
A metric cannot be insensitive to a 11.9 change unless the thing that changed is
largely absent from what it is being compared against.
🟡 **Hypothesis, untested: the game may not draw these leaves on the settled title
at all** — our renderer poses them wherever `--at` says, the game shows none of
it. That would explain the flat plateau, the tiny between-session term, and part
of the ~40 residual in one move. ⚠️ It would also mean `sylpheed-port`'s "the leaf
free-runs in the game too" is **not established by their evidence**: their two
minima come from two *different screens*, which can differ for reasons other than
a free-running phase. My two captures are of the **same** screen and barely differ
where the sweep would be.
I am not claiming the leaves are invisible — that needs a capture-side test
(a draw-stream check for `pteff03`/`pteff03a` on a settled title would settle it in
one run). What is established is narrower and enough to stop the inference: **the
box's robustness is not the crop, so no precondition about compactness explains
it, and the phase term for captures of this screen is measured at 0.32 while the
term for renders of it is 11.9.**
📌 **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