0c9224fbbc
The proposal: pose every element at the SCREEN's settle instant rather than asking each element for its own resting pose. On the 2 249 fallback elements in settling bundles the visible-pose rate falls 73.6 % -> 34.7 %. But the control fails twice. Naive, over every plateau element: 46.6 %. That one was misspecified and I caught it by asking what the number means physically -- rest() finds *a* held pose and many elements hold one during the build-in then move on, so it answers a different question and disagreement proves nothing. Restricted to elements HOLDING ACROSS the settle instant: 78.1 %, still not a pass. And the residual is ambiguous by construction: rest_plateau() picks one plateau, so an element with two whose settle instant falls in the other will disagree -- and there pose_at(settle) is RIGHT. The control cannot separate 'the candidate is wrong' from 'the incumbent is wrong'. Recorded as the general point: comparing a candidate to the incumbent cannot adjudicate when the incumbent is the thing under suspicion. It is the wrong shape of experiment, not a tuning problem. What does adjudicate is the oracle and it is the port's measurement, not mine -- publisher splash against a committed capture, settle-instant pose RMSE 2.17 / 0.01 % differing against --pose=rest 9.05 / 0.75 %. My numbers describe the proposal's effect; they do not establish it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
2.7 KiB
2.7 KiB