The Decoder retracted three claims: screen render --build N takes a build ordinal,
screen list maps [10] to entry 12, and the splashes are entries 10 and 11 -- so
their splash rows rendered the loading screens against splash captures. My own
HANDOFF entry had warned that this names the splashes as loading screens 'and
everything still validates'.
verify-screen's header claims --all protects me from exactly this, and a comment
claiming protection is what just failed on their side, so I measured it: my
reference for build 10 scores RMSE 8.97 against the publisher splash capture and
build 11 scores 8.77 against the developer one, with a cross-control (publisher
reference vs developer capture) at 48.17 -- 5.4x worse, so the discriminator has
teeth. The addressing is correct and now measured rather than asserted.
Worth the time because these two screens' 0.01% figures are among the strongest
evidence in the corpus and are cited in the rest() adjudication a proposal against
a pinned crate now rests on.
Their retraction confirms 190 and 145. Width and mid-ramp remain perfectly
confounded across every screen either of us has measured; my 5/5 predictor result
stands as a hypothesis about the mechanism, not as evidence over width.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
0a939f1c9a