aaac060510
The F6 page measured the sweep-to-plate separation against ptcopyright and called it the plate. I had already established, on another page, that ptcopyright is NOT the plate -- ptbtn00f is. Against the real plate the lead is 83 and 165 frames, i.e. 0.138 and 0.141 of a sweep loop (2.2% apart), against the 0.057 I published and sent to the port. The conclusion is unchanged and stronger: with no input the glow precedes the plate by 2.4x more than reported, and with A it still collapses to essentially zero (-1 frame). Gating the sweep on the plate is a worse fit than I made it sound. Third instance of a label being the error rather than the measurement, and this one is the same label I had already corrected elsewhere -- the correction did not propagate to a page written after it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
3.3 KiB
F6 — the human is watching their own Ⓐ press, not either declared event
Question: why does a person see the glow start exactly when the plate appears, when the declared data starts it far earlier?
What the human looks at: boot, and press Ⓐ early — the glow and the
PRESS Ⓐ plate come up together. Then boot again and press nothing: the glow
arrives clearly first, well before the plate.
What this does NOT cover: the 238…250 exit ramp (already settled as an
exit), and anything about the menu.
Instrument: ⟨capture⟩ ×4 — two no-input controls, two with a press.
The brief asked which of two declared events this is. It is neither.
🔴 Numbers corrected 2026-09-02. This page first measured the separation against
ptcopyright, calling it "the plate". It is not — the plate isptbtn00f, the pulsing element, identified inf6-plate-identity-and-clock-conflict-resolved.md. Measured against the real plate the lead is 2.4× larger. The conclusion is unchanged and stronger; the figures below are the corrected ones.
| sweep enters | ptbtn00f (plate) |
separation | (vs ptcopyright) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
f6b no input |
f577 | f660 | 83 frames | 34 |
f6 no input |
f746 | f911 | 165 frames | 67 |
f5-early Ⓐ during build-in |
f438 | f437 | −1 frame | −2 |
Phase-free, as a fraction of the sweep's own 600-unit loop: the controls give 83/600 = 0.138 and 165/1168 = 0.141 — agreeing to 2.2 % across runs that differ 2× in frames — against ~0.002 when Ⓐ lands early.
Ⓐ collapses the gap by a factor of ~80. It reveals the plate and restarts
both sweep leaves at their own t=0 in the same frame
(f5-verified-with-full-quad-reader.md),
so the two events become simultaneous because the player caused both.
Why the report and the data both stand
The human presses Ⓐ to get through the boot — that is what a player does — and at that instant the plate appears and the glow restarts together. Their observation is accurate. It is a description of a boot with a press in it, not of the declared timeline.
The last row is the check that makes this an explanation rather than a story: in
f5 the press landed after the sweep had already started on its own, and the
two are 29 frames apart. Same input, opposite result, decided only by when
the press falls.
🔴 What the port must not do
Do not start the sweep when the plate appears. That reproduces one boot and breaks the other: with no input the glow genuinely precedes the plate by 0.14 of a sweep loop. The correct behaviour is both of the pieces already delivered —
- the declared parent gate, α0 until
t=70, full att=100; and - Ⓐ restarting both leaves at
t=0as it advances the shared clock.
Together those produce the human's observation and the no-input one, with nothing authored.
Refutation attempt
I tried to find a case where the port's current behaviour (declared gate + snap restarting leaves) fails against these captures, and could not. All four runs are consistent with it. Recorded as an attempt that did not land.
Not settled
- The per-cycle phase fit for the post-wrap decomposition.
- Wrap-to-wrap sweep period: still one wrap per capture.