# ✅ The two sweeps loop at **720:600** — `pteff03a`'s timeline confirmed

**Question:** do the two glowing strips cycle at different rates?

**What the human looks at:** watch the title for a while. The two strips **drift
out of sync** — one comes round slower. Pass = they separate. Fail = they stay
locked together.

**What this does NOT cover:** their alpha curves, and the `0x70000` kind bits.

**Instrument:** ⟨capture⟩ ×2, read with `read_draws.py`. Prediction registered in
[`f6-two-leaf-periods-prereg.md`](f6-two-leaf-periods-prereg.md) **before**
measuring.

## Measured — and it is the first test `pteff03a`'s timeline has ever had

`pteff03` declares a 600-unit loop, `pteff03a` **720**. Predicted ratio
**1.2000**:

| | `pteff03` period | `pteff03a` period | ratio | error |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `f6b` | 600 frames (577→1177) | 718 frames (581→1299) | **1.1967** | **0.28 %** |
| `f6` | 1168 frames (746→1914) | 1383 frames (755→2138) | **1.1841** | 1.33 % |

The ratio is taken inside each capture, so no clock or frame rate enters — which
is why the two runs agree despite differing 2× in frames.

**`f6b` also happens to pace at one frame per leaf unit**, making it directly
readable: **600 frames for 600 declared units, 718 for 720**. That is a
coincidence of that run's pacing, not a property of the game, and it is quoted
because it is legible rather than because it is portable.

## Why this could have failed against me

`pteff03a` was found only in [`unit 11`](f6-unit11-pteff03a-IS-drawn.md), as the
second quad of a **batched draw** — and the flattering reading of a batched draw
is that one traveller drives both quads, which would give **equal periods**. The
declared data says otherwise and the capture agrees with the declaration.

So the two quads are two elements with two timelines, not one element drawn
twice. That is now measured rather than inferred from the leaf table.

## 🔴 And it closes the period that has been open all week

Every earlier attempt reported "one wrap per capture, period not obtained". It
was obtained here without a new capture: **both leaves give a complete
boundary-to-boundary cycle in both existing logs.** The old reader saw one quad,
so it could see only one of the four cycles on disk.

## Refutation attempt — made, and it **did not land**

Against the port: they now draw both sweeps, so if they ran both leaves at one
rate the strips would stay locked and drift ~118 units per cycle.

**They already run two timelines.** Measured on their side — the right instrument
for a question *about* their renderer, per R5: at a raw leaf clock of 4873 the two
leaves read **72.6 and 552.6** against **73 and 553** from their own declared
spans of 600 and 720, over 17 748 probe samples. The span is taken per leaf from
that leaf's own keyframes, so they were never locked.

Recorded as an attempt that failed. Still worth making: they report they would
otherwise have asserted it from reading the code, and the property had never been
measured.

## Not settled

* The `0x70000` kind bits (160 elements, nothing blocked on them).
* The per-cycle phase fit for the post-wrap alpha decomposition.