f6-out-of-sample-RESULT.md left three failures unexplained beyond "n=2 wasn't
enough". Reviewing what's already decoded: two of the three (the ptcopyright/
parent ramp ratio, the sweep-leads-plate lead) fail in the SAME direction
(0.75x, 0.71x of predicted), and f6-unit10 already established the sweep and
plate families are gated by separately-triggered parents -- a ratio across
two independently-triggered elements has no structural guarantee of being a
constant, unlike a ratio internal to one element family (which is exactly
what the passing three checks are). The gross mislabeling that caused the
ORIGINAL 1.7x conflict was fixed two days before the prereg was written, so
that's ruled out as the cause here; whether the cross-group phase genuinely
varies boot to boot vs. an artifact in the frame-based ratio math is still
open, and needs more captures to tell apart -- filed as a follow-on, not run
here.
check_labels.py conflated two different claims under one "N LABEL(S) DRIFTED"
verdict: identity checks (which element -- clock-free, still 3-for-3 out of
sample) and timing checks (a cross-element ratio and a self-consistency curve
fit -- 0-for-2 out of sample). Split into two reported groups; only identity
gates the exit code now. Tolerances untouched -- widening them to pass f6c
would be tuning the check on the case that failed it, the same error class
already named twice in this corpus. Verified with synthetic data shaped like
the real f6c residue (3/3 identity, 0/2 timing, exit 0) and confirmed the
selftest's injected mislabel still fails an identity check (exit 1) -- no
capture exists in this fresh container to run it against real logs.
The withdrawn sweep->plate lead (0.138-0.141) stays withdrawn. Nothing here
reinstates a number.
Every F5/F6 figure comes from captures taken for other purposes and
re-analysed after the reader and three labels were corrected. None has been
tested out of sample. Six predictions registered before the capture, five of
them checkable by check_labels.py, which now takes --cap NAME=path.
Prediction 6 is the one already got wrong once (0.057 against ptcopyright
instead of 0.14 against the real plate), and is stated so a landing near
0.057 would show the correction itself was wrong.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
I claimed ptbtn00f's peak alpha of 80 was capture-only and refuted the
port's audit with it. Verified on the disc myself: ptbtn00f.rat, loop 120,
eight keyframes 0:0 6:6 29:74 35:80 50:80 58:74 97:6 105:0. ptbtn00 carries
TWO child records -- the leaf ptbtn00.rat (flat 255, which I read and
described correctly) and the focus record ptbtn00f.rat, which holds the
pulse. My "nothing declares 80" said only that nothing reached my
enumeration. METHOD.md has five entries on exactly this class.
Resolves the 🟡 with it: the corpus line attributing the 120-unit loop to
ptbtn00f is correct as written.
Turns the retraction into a stronger check. The amplitude is declared, so
check_labels.py now verifies the SHAPE: mean |alpha| error 1.14 levels (f6)
and 0.35 (f6b) against the declared 8-key curve. The first version assumed
the onset frame was t=0 and f6b FAILED at 3.24; the fix was aligning by
content rather than loosening the tolerance, since the 6->74 segment climbs
~6 levels per frame. Best lag is ~1 frame in both runs -- the element is not
drawn while its curve sits at alpha 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
Three of my errors were the label rather than the measurement, and a
correction in one document did not reach the next page I wrote. The port
built check-authored-vs-declared for values the disc can arbitrate and named
the gap: capture-only values that name an element rest entirely on my label.
check_labels.py closes that for the cases where the identification was
itself made by matching a declared quantity -- 8 checks over two captures,
all passing, with a --selftest that points the plate label at ptcopyright
(the real error) and must fail. It does, at 82-83% against a 5% tolerance,
with the other checks still passing so the failure is localised.
Refutation of the port's "all five figures are also declared": lands for
one. ptbtn00f's peak alpha of 80 is not declared anywhere -- ptbtn00.rat's
parent peaks at 255 and its leaf is one keyframe at 255 flat, with the
120-unit loop declared but no amplitude. The period checks out; the
amplitude is capture-only and their check cannot see it.
Opens a 🟡 not mine originally: the corpus attributes the 120-unit loop to
ptbtn00f, but it belongs to ptbtn00.rat whose leaf is ptbtn00.t32. Left
uncorrected since the identification rests on the period, which holds under
either name.
Adds examples/leaf_keyframes.rs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
