They proposed posing at the screen's settle instant, found their control could not
validate it (a candidate cannot be adjudicated against the incumbent it replaces),
and said the oracle number decides. I had only run it on one screen.
Three screens adjudicate cleanly and all favour the candidate: title 0.21% vs
1.82%, publisher_logo 0.01% vs 0.75%, developer_logos 0.01% vs 0.33%. The settled
figures match verify-capture's independently recorded numbers to the digit.
Two rows are not evidence. My first table had main_menu at 3.29% for the
candidate, losing by 13x -- the opposite direction from everything else, with no
plausible story. --screen= shoots immediately, so that render drew 6 of 16
elements and skipped ptframe1, ptframe2 and ptmsg as transparent at t=9. The same
wrong-frame error as title_jp, caught before publishing only because the
direction made no sense.
Posing them properly needs --menu, which also draws the focus record, while the
rest column draws none. verify-capture's header records main_menu without focus at
2159 px = 0.234%, and my incumbent figure is 0.25% -- so the entire gap on those
two rows is the focus record, not the pose. Marked confounded rather than counted;
a 5-0 was available by not looking.
Does not validate their implementation: I tested the port's settled pose, not
UiBuild::settle_time().
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
3a66665f66