sylpheed-port reported hedging a predicate in DECISIONS.md while stating the
unhedged version in their tool's header, and named it as the same delivery gap
they had fixed once elsewhere and not generalised. Checked this side for the same
shape and found it.
`sylpheed-cli screen render --at` told every user that the resting pose "is wrong
twice over" and to "Prefer `--settle`". That recommendation was never measured.
What the corpus actually records: scored against a live capture of the JP title,
settle gives RMSE 40.210 and rest 41.690 -- a margin of 1.48 against that
instrument's own noise floor of 1.2, which is not decisive -- and --settle has its
own failure mode, 25.5 % of elements mid-ramp at their screen's settle instant.
So neither is established as better, and the interface has been telling people
otherwise while the hedge lived only in docs/re/.
Corrected in the help text itself, on both flags, with the numbers rather than a
softer adjective. Verified by artifact: the tool's --help output is quoted in the
commit's own test, not merely recompiled.
METHOD: hedging in the write-up does not protect the claim you ship in the tool.
Docs are where a claim is reasoned; the tool is where it is believed. Read your
own --help as if a stranger wrote it and check every confident sentence against
what the corpus establishes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
0d1e0ae8b7