# Pre-registration — is the guest 30 fps or 60 fps? The movie is the ruler

**Status: ❔ open, and this page is written BEFORE the capture.** It exists so the
number below cannot be chosen after the fact.
[`METHOD.md`](METHOD.md) and
[`../agents/TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION.md`](../agents/TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION.md) both
require the expected value to be stated first; this corpus has two withdrawn
findings from not doing it. 2026-09-01.

---

## The one number the port is still blocked on

Everything else about the `PRESS Ⓐ` plate is settled. `HANDOFF.md` §H3 states it
plainly:

> *"**Units per second is still open**, and it is now the only place the
> disagreement lives. `units/s = (units/frame) × (guest frames/s)`. This pins the
> first at **2**. The second is untouched."*

| | units/s | plate at `t = 236` |
|---|---|---|
| **H_A** — guest presents at 30 fps | 60 | **3.93 s** ← what the port ships |
| **H_B** — guest presents at 60 fps | 120 | **1.97 s** |

The play-test says the port's plate is **late**, and H_B is 1.96 s earlier —
*"about two seconds early"* is the size of what was reported. So this is not a
tie-break between two tidy numbers; one of them is the reported defect.

⚠️ **Why no capture so far has settled it.** Canary presents at ~27–28 fps and
runs the guest slower than real time by an unknown factor. A wall-clock rate off
this emulator therefore cannot tell *a 30 Hz guest at full speed* from *a 60 Hz
guest at half speed* — they produce the identical observation. Both existing
measurements (2.13 s and 0.73 s for the same interval, **2.9× apart**) are
wall-clock readings, which is why they disagree.

## The ruler: a disc fact that is not a wall clock

`ADV.wmv` — the boot intro and the attract movie, the same asset
([`movie-binding.md`](movie-binding.md)) — declares its video rate in its own
ASF header:

```
/disc/dat/movie/ADV.wmv
  FileProperties        play duration 142.714 s, preroll 5.000 s -> net 137.714 s
  StreamProperties      video, 1280x720, fourcc WMV3
  ExtendedStreamProperties  stream #2  avgTimePerFrame = 333333 x100ns
                                       -> 30.0000 fps  EXACTLY
```

(Stream #1 is the audio; its `avgTimePerFrame` of 3 276 559 is a packet rate and
is not a video rate. Reading it as one gives a nonsensical 3.05 fps — noted
because it is the obvious way to get this wrong.)

**30.000 fps is a property of the shipped file**, not of a run. A decoded movie
frame is therefore a tick of a clock that Canary's speed cannot stretch: however
slowly the emulator runs, the guest still decodes 30 movie frames per second *of
movie time*, and movie time is what the movie was authored in.

## The measurement

During attract-movie playback, the guest triple-buffers the decoded YUV planes —
the splash census already saw them, and correctly excluded them:

> *"six `640×360` textures and three `1280×720` ones … the attract **movie's**
> chroma and luma planes, triple-buffered, and they first appear at frame 234."*

So: **count how many consecutive swap labels bind the same movie luma texture
base.** One decoded movie frame = one base change.

## 🔴 The predictions, stated now

| | labels per movie frame | movie-luma base changes per 100 labels |
|---|---|---|
| **H_A** guest 30 fps ⇒ **60 units/s** | **1.0** | **100** |
| **H_B** guest 60 fps ⇒ **120 units/s** | **2.0** | **50** |

A factor of **two**, on a ratio of counts, with no wall clock anywhere in it.
I will accept H_A if the ratio is within `1.0 ± 0.15` and H_B within
`2.0 ± 0.30`, and report "neither" otherwise rather than picking the closer.

## What would make this instrument lie, and the guard for each

1. **The guest drops movie frames** to stay in sync with real time while Canary
   runs slow. That *raises* labels-per-movie-frame and biases toward H_B — the
   dangerous direction, because H_B is the answer I would find more interesting.
   **Guard:** a dropped frame shows as a base persisting for an unusual run
   length. I will report the **distribution** of run lengths, not the mean. H_A
   is a spike at 1; H_B is a spike at 2; frame-dropping is a smear with a tail.
2. **The base cycles for a reason other than a new frame** (e.g. re-binding the
   same buffer). **Guard:** the buffers are triple-buffered, so a clean cycle
   visits three distinct bases in a fixed order. I will check the order is a
   3-cycle before counting anything.
3. **The movie is not playing at its declared rate** because the guest is
   frame-locked to its own presentation instead of to the movie clock. This is
   the assumption the whole method rests on and it is **not** guarded — if the
   run-length distribution is clean but disagrees with both predictions, that is
   the likely cause, and the finding is then "undecodable by this route".

## Control, to be run before the measurement is believed

The same log carries the **boot splashes** (frames 4…226), where the alpha step
is already established at **+34 per presented frame** on six quads. If the
recovered log does not reproduce 34, the capture is not comparable to the one
that number came from and nothing else in it should be read.

## Reach, in advance

⟨capture⟩ for the ratio; ⟨disc⟩ for the 30.000 fps. If it comes out clean, the
result is **measured**, not decoded: it is a property of how this game drives its
own clock, observed once. It would want a second, independent boot before the
port bakes it in — and if it says H_B, it says the port's plate is 1.96 s late
and that is worth a second run before anyone rewrites a timeline.