The port challenged the by-size identification: both sweep sprites are the
same size, so size cannot separate pteff03 from pteff03a, and the two
leaves floor at 128 and 0. They were right, and it is broken a third way.
Their discriminator -- the leaves travel in opposite directions -- is in
the capture I already had. Both rows drift +2.19 and +2.18 in x, i.e. BOTH
LEFT TO RIGHT, so both are pteff03. The 0.7% size difference is per-frame
rounding splitting one element across two keys, not two elements. pteff03a
does not appear in this capture at all.
And my own presentation misled. The "alphas 8 24 33 50 58" I quoted were
sorted(set(...))[:9] -- the nine LOWEST DISTINCT values, not the series.
Read as a trajectory they look like a ramp from 8. They are a tail. The
counts: 9 of 1140 and 5 of 614 samples below 128, so 14 sub-floor samples
out of 1754.
The bound argument survives in shape and collapses in weight. A sample
below 128 is still unexplainable by a leaf flooring at 128, but 14 of 1754
is a thin tail and a tail is where a vertex-grouping slip or a partial
frame would show up. Downgraded to amber: not refuted, not established.
Settling it needs the same capture read as a SERIES rather than a set --
alpha against frame across t=70..100, where a multiplying parent must
produce a monotone ramp on nearly every frame rather than 14 stragglers.
One more read of data already on disk.
The port was right to hold the renderer. Adopting this would have changed a
rendering rule on every screen with a leaf, on 14 samples I had presented
as a trajectory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
Question, look-at and not-covered written before the work, per PROTOCOL's
units section.
One boot, one A to skip the attract video, then no input so the title
builds in undisturbed. The sweeps are the two rotated 600%-scaled strips,
identified by size: NDC 1.38x3.15 and 1.39x3.15, matching the corpus's own
independently measured AABB height of 1134 px (2*1134/720 = 3.15).
Drawn alphas run 8, 24, 33, 50, 58, 74, 83, 100, 107 and 16, 41, 67, 91,
116, 128... pteff03's LEAF alpha is bounded below by 128 (keys 0:255
150:128 540:255 600:255). 8 < 128, so the leaf cannot produce it alone.
The parent's alpha is multiplied in.
That refutes the port's screen_view.gd decode that "the leaf runs on its
OWN timeline and the parent's alpha is NOT multiplied in" -- which is
exactly what that file asked for. It flagged honestly that every
observation behind it had parent alpha 0, so "the leaf wins" and "the
parent is ignored because it draws nothing" were never separated, and named
t=100..238 as the separating interval. This capture is in that interval.
Bears on F6's original report: the parent ramps 0->255 across t=70..100, so
if it multiplies in the sweep is invisible before ~70 and dim until 100. A
human reporting it starts late is seeing a real gate -- the parent's ENTRY
ramp, not the 238 cluster, which unit 1 showed is an exit.
Reach: one boot; quads identified by size against a previously measured
AABB, not by name, since the draw stream carries no names. The bound
argument needs only that the leaf minimum is 128, which is from the disc.
It does NOT establish the combination is plain leaf x parent rather than
some other one that also dips below 128 -- only that the parent
participates.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
