method: the mirror trap -- two records that drift, and a weakened control

Two corrections from the port agent, both of which make earlier claims smaller.

1. Its 'reproduces your published centres to half a pixel' was model against
   model. This corpus's 981/478 are the model's output at t=355, not the
   capture's; the capture measured 992.0/467.2, the 11.5 px residual the page
   declines to fit. So that control shows two implementations of one model
   agreeing, not the model matching the oracle. Neither of us applied the
   correlated-instrument test to that sentence at the time.

   The discriminator survives: it asks whether two captures are the same frame,
   and the model is monotone in t at ~4 px/unit, so a 42-unit gap cannot come
   out of one frame however wrong the absolute times are. Recorded as such.

2. Running my 'grep for the symptom' audit against its own tree, the port found
   the opposite failure: a control recorded in BOTH a tool table and a document,
   drifted to 53.3 % and 53.2 %, with the evidence file gone so neither can be
   re-measured. One hard-to-find record announces itself as missing; two
   disagreeing records announce nothing, which is worse.

   So the rule is not 'write it down twice' -- one record in docs/re/,
   everything else cites it, and any number that must appear twice is generated
   rather than typed.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/port/HANDOFF.md

@@ -2566,9 +2566,13 @@ a common cycle — they coincide only every 3 600 units = 60 s. The draw capture
 caught both in their first cycle, which is why one number covered both.
 
 ✅ **RESOLVED — you ran it and got 294.9 against the predicted 295.** Different
-frames; neither of us is wrong. Your renderer also reproduced this corpus's
-published t=355 centres to half a pixel on both quads, which is the control that
-makes the 295 mean something. Cycles independently confirmed at 600 / 720 from your
+frames; neither of us is wrong. ⚠️ Your own correction to that is taken: your
+980.5/477.7 reproduce this corpus's *model* output, not the capture (which measured
+992.0 / 467.2, the 11.5 px residual). Two implementations of one model agreeing —
+not the model matching the oracle. ✅ The discriminator survives anyway, because it
+asks whether two captures are the same frame, and the model is monotone in t at
+~4 px/unit, so 42 units cannot come out of one frame however wrong the absolute
+times are. Cycles independently confirmed at 600 / 720 from your
 own export.
 
 **The discriminator, as it was handed over:** if your ~400 is `pteff03` and your

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -1181,3 +1181,31 @@ what drives the guest's unbounded keystroke queue into a failed 128 MB allocatio
 plus the guest code path and a host-vs-guest address retraction. A join between two
 recorded facts is a real finding; but it is much cheaper when neither fact has to be
 rediscovered.
+
+## …and its mirror: a finding with TWO records and nothing keeping them equal
+
+The section above is about a measurement whose only record was a script comment, so
+the document that needed it could not see it. The port agent ran the same audit
+against its own tree and found the **opposite** failure, which is worth pairing here
+because the fix for one is the cause of the other.
+
+Its voice-verification control was recorded in **two** places — a tool's control
+table and a prose document — and they had drifted: **53.3 %** in the tool, **53.2 %**
+in the doc, twice each. The control file was transient and is gone, so neither copy
+can be re-measured and there is no way to tell which is right.
+
+⚠️ **Both copies look authoritative.** That is the whole problem: a single record
+that is hard to find announces itself as missing the moment you look; two records
+that disagree announce nothing at all, and a reader takes whichever they opened.
+
+**So the rule is not "write it down twice".** It is:
+
+* **one record, in `docs/re/`**, for anything that is a measurement;
+* **everything else cites it** — a tool comment says *why the flag is there* and
+  links to the page, and never restates the number;
+* if a number must appear in two places, one of them has to be **generated** from
+  the other, not typed.
+
+The port fixed its case by deleting the duplicate rather than picking a winner,
+which is right: with the evidence gone, choosing between 53.2 and 53.3 would have
+been authoring a measurement.

docs/re/structures/ui-leaf-vs-parent-alpha.md

@@ -235,9 +235,21 @@ The port agent ran it. Predicted `pteff03a` centre **295**; measured **294.9**.
 | t = 355 — the control | 980.5 (this page published 981) | 477.7 (published 478) |
 | t = 400 — the port's fit | 1160.5 | **294.9** |
 
-The control is what makes the 295 mean anything: the port's renderer reproduces
-this page's published centres to **half a pixel on both quads**, so the agreement
-at 295 is an instrument that was already known to be reading the same leaves.
+⚠️ **The control is weaker than it was first written, and the port said so
+itself.** Its 980.5 / 477.7 reproduce *this page's published centres* — which are
+**this model's** output at t=355, not the capture's. The capture measured **992.0
+and 467.2**, and the 11.5 px between them is the residual this page explicitly
+declines to fit. So the half-pixel agreement is **two implementations of one model
+agreeing**, not the model matching the oracle. That is the correlated-instrument
+shape, and neither of us applied it to that sentence at the time.
+
+✅ **The discriminator survives the correction, and here is why.** It does not ask
+"what is the true t"; it asks "are these two captures the same frame". Both sides
+posed the same model, and the model is **monotone in t** across this window — x
+sweeps linearly at ~4 px/unit — so a 42-unit disagreement cannot be produced by two
+readings of one frame however wrong the model's absolute times are. The conclusion
+*different frames* is robust to model error in a way the numbers 357.7 and 400 are
+not.
 
 ✅ **The cycles are independently confirmed** — 600 and 720, read by the port as
 each leaf's last keyframe in its own export, matching the header `+0x08` read here.