fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests 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

18
docs/re/structures/ui-leaf-vs-parent-alpha.md
View File

@@ -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.