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

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

Browse Source 
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
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-30 07:26:27 +00:00
parent 8dfa0ebac5
commit ec06c50bf6
4 changed files with 112 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -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.