b0a7b5c785
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
3.1 KiB
✅ 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 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, 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
0x70000kind bits (160 elements, nothing blocked on them). - The per-cycle phase fit for the post-wrap alpha decomposition.