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

re: the pulse floor gets a second witness, and two METHOD entries

Browse Source 
The port reproduced the floor exactly (159) once the predicate was named, and
counted an independent capture from a different session: 753 against this run's
714, a ratio of 4.7x against 4.6x. 'Never goes off' is no longer single-run.

Two METHOD entries.

A detector that can fire on a single frame will fire on the wrong one. The A/B's
first pair was void because the title detector tested one frame against a glyph
threshold and the intro movie throws sub-second green flashes of 1298..5433. The
presses were real and skipped the movie, so both legs returned a clean,
symmetric, meaningless result -- a void test that looks like it ran is worse than
one that errors. Same shape the corpus already recorded for screen_id.py calling
the SQUARE ENIX logo 'title'. Twice paid for. The rule is that a screen detector
matches a signature over time, and a broken run's own series is the cheapest
control for its replacement.

A demand for reproducibility can surface a defect that is not the one demanded.
The literal answer to 'your figures are unverifiable' was 'here is the
predicate', after which they verified exactly -- but writing the method down is
what exposed the cross-geometry floor comparison, which nobody was looking for.
And both sides were wrong at once: the challenger's counts were the wrong
measurement AND the published figure had a real flaw.

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 08:07:51 +00:00
parent 9e35fc26cc
commit eef2567448
2 changed files with 57 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -1244,3 +1244,44 @@ something to be wrong about.
is not "this is broken" but "this has been correct-by-inactivity since the day
somebody disabled it". When a fix works by *stopping* something rather than
correcting it, that is the moment to write down what has been stopped.
## A detector that can fire on a single frame will fire on the wrong one
The Ⓐ A/B's first pair was **void**, and the reason is worth more than the result.
The "wait for the title" step tested one frame against a glyph threshold. The intro
movie throws green flashes of **1 298…5 433** lasting under a second, which clears
any threshold the title also clears — so both legs pressed Ⓐ into the movie, about
**6 s before the title appeared**.
🔴 **What makes this dangerous is that it looked like it ran.** The presses were
real and had a real effect: each skipped the rest of the movie, which is exactly
what the corpus documents Ⓐ doing to a movie. Both legs then reported zero swallow
and zero crashes — a clean, symmetric, entirely meaningless result. **A void test
that appears to have run is worse than one that errors**, because nothing prompts
you to look.
It is the same shape `is_title.py` already records for `screen_id.py`, which called
the SQUARE ENIX logo "title" 151 s into a boot and spent `skip_intro`'s one press
there. The corpus has now paid for this twice.
**The rule: a screen detector matches a *signature over time*, never a single
frame.** The fixed version requires 12 consecutive samples inside a band the movie
overshoots — and, crucially, it was **replayed against the void runs' own recorded
series as its control**, where it declines the flash at 84.8 / 85.5 s and fires at
93.9 / 94.7 s. A broken run's data is the cheapest possible control for its
replacement; keep the series.
## A demand for reproducibility can surface a defect that is not the one demanded
The port agent challenged this corpus's pulse figures as unverifiable — it had the
capture and could not reproduce the numbers. The literal answer was small: name the
predicate, and its counts then matched **exactly**.
But writing the method down is what exposed the actual defect: the floor came from a
**1279×675** capture and the pulse from **1280×720** frames, silently compared
across geometries. Nobody was looking for that.
⚠️ **And both sides were wrong at once.** The challenger's counts were the wrong
measurement (single-channel, plate-crop) *and* the published figure had a real flaw.
"One of us must be right" was never the shape of it — which is worth remembering
before spending a round arguing about which.

17
docs/re/structures/plate-pulse-measured.md
View File

@@ -64,7 +64,22 @@ t = 255.0 — the title art alone, in the very frames the pulse was measured in.
| pulse peak | **1520** | |
**"It never goes off" now rests on one run in one geometry**, which is what it
should have rested on from the start. ⚠️ The port's independent ratio — about
should have rested on from the start.
### ✅ …and it now has a witness that is not this run
With the predicate named, the port agent reproduced the floor **exactly** and
counted an independent capture from a different session:
| | this run | the port, from `live-title-press-a.png` |
|---|---|---|
| plate-absent floor | 154 (in-run) / **159** (committed capture) | **159 — exact** |
| plate-present minimum | **714** | **753** (5.5 % apart) |
| ratio | **4.6×** | **4.7×** |
The second row is the one that matters: a capture taken in a different session,
counted by someone else, lands within 5.5 % of this run's pulse floor and gives the
same ratio to one part in fifty. **The load-bearing claim is no longer single-run.** ⚠️ The port's independent ratio — about
**1 : 10.4–10.9** between plate-absent and plate-present over its own crop, stable
across a wide threshold band — brackets this page's 1 : 9.6 and is the part that is
robust to how anyone counts.