The refutation aimed at the port did not land -- they already run two
timelines, measured on their side (72.6/552.6 against declared 73/553 over
17748 samples), the right instrument for a question about their own
renderer. Recorded as an attempt that failed; still worth making, since they
report they would otherwise have asserted it from the code.
Also notes in METHOD.md that the batched-draw trap produced a THIRD wrong
finding with the entry already written. Two sections of that file and a
REFUTED.md line already said a draw carries more than one quad. The lesson
is not the fact but that a reader written before consulting the file
reproduces the bug the file exists to prevent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
Pre-registered 1.2000 from the declared leaf loops before measuring.
Measured 1.1967 (0.28%) in f6b and 1.1841 (1.33%) in f6, as a ratio inside
each capture so no clock enters -- which is why runs differing 2x in frames
agree. f6b happens to pace at one frame per leaf unit: 600 frames for 600
declared units, 718 for 720.
First test pteff03a's declared timeline has ever had. It could have failed
against me: the flattering reading of unit 11's batched draw is one
traveller driving both quads, which gives equal periods. It does not.
Also closes "one wrap per capture, period not obtained", which has been open
all week -- both leaves give a complete boundary-to-boundary cycle in both
existing logs. The truncating reader saw one quad, so it could see only one
of the four cycles already on disk.
Refutation aimed at the port: running both leaves at one rate leaves the
strips locked and drifting ~118 units per cycle from the game.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
