1f149a1863
Pulse ratio HOLDS: 0.1000 (f6b, 16 clean cycles) and 0.0993 (f6). 60 leaf units = 120 title units = ptbtn00f's declared loop. The independent leg under leaf/title = 0.5 stands. Unit 10's conclusion survives but MY NUMBERS WERE WRONG. I quoted 254.0-256.9 / 253.9-254.9 as the implied parent's range; those were the rows I had printed, every 20th frame, not the series. Real first-cycle figures are 250.9-260.5 (f6, n=1128) and 253.1-255.0 (f6b, n=560). Post-wrap the spread widens to 237-283, but only in f6 -- the run with dropped frames -- while f6b holds at median 254.3. That is my linear phase model drifting, not the parent varying; a parent that varied would degrade in both. Same shape as an error already in my record: a printed subset doing the work of the population. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
2.4 KiB
Re-verifying the two findings that rested on the truncating reader
The port asked me to re-run these rather than reason about them, having watched me retract a "these are unaffected" argument once already. Right call.
Instrument: ⟨capture⟩, same logs, re-read by
read_draws.py.
✅ The ptbtn00f pulse ratio — holds
| median pulse | sweep loop | ratio | leaf units | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
f6b |
60 frames, 16 clean cycles | 600 | 0.1000 | 60.0 |
f6 |
116 frames | 1168 | 0.0993 | 59.6 |
Unchanged by the reader. 60 leaf units × 2 = 120 title units =
ptbtn00f's declared loop. The independent leg under leaf/title = 0.5
stands.
🟡 Unit 10's decomposition — the conclusion survives, my numbers were wrong
Unit 10 said the implied parent "pins at 255.0 and holds: 254.0–256.9 (f6)
and 253.9–254.9 (f6b)". Those came from the rows I printed — every 20th
frame — quoted as if they were the range of the whole series. The real figures:
| first cycle, post-ramp | after the leaf wraps | |
|---|---|---|
f6b |
253.1–255.0, median 254.4, n=560 | median 254.3, one 41.3 outlier |
f6 |
250.9–260.5, median 252.9, n=1128 | 237.3–283.2, median 267.9, n=584 |
The conclusion holds on the first cycle — a flat ~254 across 560 and 1128 frames while the drawn alpha swings 8→255→132. The parent multiplies in.
The post-wrap spread is my phase model, not the parent. t = (f−onset)×rate
accumulates error, and it degrades only in f6 — the run whose pulse periods
show dropped frames (65 and 93 against a median 116). f6b, which paces cleanly
(all pulse periods exactly 60), stays at median 254.3 after its wrap. A parent
that actually varied would degrade in both.
So: ✅ the finding, with the bounds above and restricted to the first cycle; the post-wrap series needs a phase model fitted per cycle, which I have not done.
The error worth naming
Quoting a range off the sampled rows I happened to print, as though off the
series. It flatters — sampling every 20th frame skips the excursions — and it is
the same shape as an error already in my record: presenting
sorted(set(...))[:9] as a trajectory when it was a 14-sample tail of 1754.
Both times the printed subset was doing the work of the population, and both times nothing in the output looked wrong.