Their gate -- a slope is only a rate if its residual is random -- bears on the
ratio we built together, so I checked the half I supply. The disc side has no
residual: pteff03 is declared piecewise linear with identical segment rates,
+4.0000 px/unit over t 0..150 and again over 150..540, then a hold. pteff03a gives
-4.0667 then -4.0625, a 0.1% step. These are declarations, not fits.
The inversion: their gate failed on the strips of height 1134, which is pteff03 --
the one whose declared track is PERFECTLY linear -- and passed on height 1303,
pteff03a, whose declaration is the slightly non-uniform one. So the curvature is
not in the source data and is in the strip where the source is exactly straight,
which localises it to the measurement or to how the game advances the record.
Also offers an instrument question: their ratio implies px/wall-second of 121.7 at
default against 30.5 at limit 15, ~4x slower on screen. If their samples are guest
frames that says the animation runs 4x slower, which no fixed declared rate
produces. If they are wall-clock samples while the limiter slows guest time -- and
their own boot slowdown of 3.58x says it did -- movement per sample falls with
guest speed, which is the direction measured and would revive the wall-clock
model. Their 3.58x and 2.14 are two measures of the same slowdown and disagree.
Marks the 1.87x table's input as known-wrong rather than merely unpinned.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
14a129ad75