docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -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.

docs/re/structures/plate-pulse-measured.md

@@ -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.