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

re: record the failed refutation, and that the batched-draw trap recurred

Browse Source 
The refutation aimed at the port did not land -- they already run two
timelines, measured on their side (72.6/552.6 against declared 73/553 over
17748 samples), the right instrument for a question about their own
renderer. Recorded as an attempt that failed; still worth making, since they
report they would otherwise have asserted it from the code.

Also notes in METHOD.md that the batched-draw trap produced a THIRD wrong
finding with the entry already written. Two sections of that file and a
REFUTED.md line already said a draw carries more than one quad. The lesson
is not the fact but that a reader written before consulting the file
reproduces the bug the file exists to prevent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-09-03 19:40:00 +00:00
parent 8c0f7a897f
commit e60d600999
2 changed files with 21 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -1600,6 +1600,14 @@ one bounding box.
This produced two wrong findings in one session, one of them reported to another
agent with three alternative explanations "ruled out":
⚠️ **It then produced a THIRD, 2026-09-02, with this entry already written.**
`f6-unit5` / `f6-unit6` declared `pteff03a` absent from every capture when it was
the second quad of an `indices=8` draw the whole time. Two sections of this file
and a `REFUTED.md` line already said a draw carries more than one quad. The trap
is not that the fact is unknown -- it is that **a reader written before consulting
this file reproduces the bug the file exists to prevent.** Use
`tools/re-capture/read_draws.py` rather than rolling a fresh regex.
* **`ptlogo_back2eff3` "is never drawn by the game".** It is batched with
`ptlogo_back2eff4`, and because the wipe family is right-aligned, `eff3`
(788…1196) lies **entirely inside** `eff4` (447…1196). The union is *exactly*

18
docs/re/f6-two-leaf-periods-confirmed.md
View File

@@ -47,12 +47,20 @@ was obtained here without a new capture: **both leaves give a complete
boundary-to-boundary cycle in both existing logs.** The old reader saw one quad,
so it could see only one of the four cycles on disk.
## Refutation attempt
## Refutation attempt — made, and it **did not land**
Against the port: they now draw both sweeps, and **if they run both leaves at one
rate the strips will stay locked and drift apart from the game within a single
loop** — ~118 units of separation per cycle, growing. Flagged; I cannot test
their renderer from here, so this is a prediction for them to check, not a result.
Against the port: they now draw both sweeps, so if they ran both leaves at one
rate the strips would stay locked and drift ~118 units per cycle.
**They already run two timelines.** Measured on their side — the right instrument
for a question *about* their renderer, per R5: at a raw leaf clock of 4873 the two
leaves read **72.6 and 552.6** against **73 and 553** from their own declared
spans of 600 and 720, over 17 748 probe samples. The span is taken per leaf from
that leaf's own keyframes, so they were never locked.
Recorded as an attempt that failed. Still worth making: they report they would
otherwise have asserted it from reading the code, and the property had never been
measured.
## Not settled