fa887b4e5f
The four elements the port measured as the worst on EXTRAS, and which appeared in no draw, were in a draw all along: the 24-index additive batch holds six quads and Canary printed the first two. Cap raised to 64, screen re-captured, all six named. Same draw as ptframe3, whose state was already measured -- the one-way implication doing real work. pteff10 is identified too, and it needed the resting SCALE: it ships as 409x144 and is drawn at 200 % x 500 % = 816x720. The matcher's 'try 1x and 2x' rule could not name it at any scale and reported a near miss against something else, which is a failure wearing the clothes of an answer. Candidates are now the declaration's pivot*2 scaled by the resting keyframe as well as the texture at 1x and 2x, and the tolerance is the log's own NDC print quantisation rather than a chosen number. Flagged rather than buried: pteff10 measuring additive is in tension with the port measuring it nearly exact under alpha-over. Both can be true for a dim semi-transparent glow over a dark background, and it is the one row a rendering check does not corroborate. Also stated: the three full-screen alpha-over draws are NOT individually identified -- four elements declare 1280x720 -- so the label on those rows is a candidate, not an identification. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
12 KiB
12 KiB