Marks the two void splash rows in the capture-comparison data file, withdraws the
three claims in HANDOFF, and corrects the METHOD entry -- whose 'a gradient across
buckets is not a mechanism' near-miss was itself resolved by a counter-example
taken with the wrong index.
General form recorded: an index that silently means something else produces
well-formed output for the wrong object, and this project has now been bitten
twice from opposite directions with 'everything still validates' both times.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
Closes the gap the port named: it ran my proposal against captures 3/3 in favour,
but tested ITS OWN settled pose rather than UiBuild::settle_time().
Geometry established first, because my first attempt got it wrong: a 1280x720
render meets a 1279x675 capture by CROP, not scale -- crop rows 0..675 gives RMSE
14.07 against 68.89 resized and 79.61 for the 45-row crop. The 45-row offset
holds for a full display frame; these captures are already the game surface.
Gamma fitted per pose so neither candidate can win on the fit:
title settle g=0.84 RMSE 8.17 15.28 % >8
title rest g=1.04 RMSE 20.92 70.84 % >8
The two splashes DO NOT ADJUDICATE and are not counted: their gamma fit rails at
the edge of the search range, still railing when widened to 0.30..3.00, so the
photometric model is wrong for them -- and with gamma railed their margins
collapse to 1.16x and 1.06x.
title adjudicates at an interior gamma and does so decisively, 4.6x on differing
area and 2.6x on RMSE. So the IMPLEMENTATION and not merely the direction is
supported.
Absolute agreement is poor -- the port's settled title row is 0.21 % where mine
is 15.28 % -- so the ordering is what this table carries, not the values. The
port's three-screen result remains the stronger evidence.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
