59cf6d8608
Two corrections to my own file, one from the Decoder and one from a GPU. 1. "60 NOW STANDS ON A THIRD INDEPENDENT ROUTE" IS WITHDRAWN. I recorded it last iteration and challenged it in the same breath -- three routes to one number are weaker than they look if they share an upstream assumption -- but I wrote the claim down first and the caveat second. The Decoder audited it and agreed: route B needs "the guest presents 60x/s", from the vblank histogram UNDER Xenia's 60 Hz limiter; route C needs "the vblank is 60 Hz", that limiter's cvar; route D is a wall-clock duration that lands on 60 only because the vblank is 60 Hz. One witness in three coats. ✅ What survives is conditional and better, established by MANIPULATION rather than agreement -- forcing 30 Hz gave 30.2 units/s, 60 Hz gives 59.8/61.3: units per second = THE DISPLAY REFRESH RATE. It becomes "60" only through a fact this corpus has never measured: an Xbox 360 outputs 60 Hz. A hardware specification -- solid, and belonging CITED as a spec rather than folded in as a third measurement. 📌 The conditional form justifies this port's construction rather than excusing it. "units/s = refresh rate" says what to do on hardware that is NOT 60 Hz, which is exactly why a time-based clock at a fixed 60 units/s is right where a frame-based one would drift. `kind` stays `authored`, and the reason is now sharper: the measurement is of a RELATIONSHIP, and the constant that closes it comes from a datasheet. 2. THE +1.2 / +1.6 UNIT DWELL RESIDUAL WAS FRAME GRANULARITY -- measured now, not inferred. I attributed it to the exit check's granularity without testing it. The GPU makes it testable: same boot, same declared groups, 65-66 fps instead of 17-25. Pre-registered: shrink roughly with the frame rate, so <=0.5 units at 65 fps. publisher 4.27 / 4.26 / 4.27 mean 4.253 s residual +0.20 units developer 3.50 / 3.52 / 3.50 mean 3.500 s residual +0.00 units From +1.2 and +1.6 to +0.20 and +0.00. The prediction held. ⚠️ It also means the 4.270 / 3.527 quoted elsewhere carry a rendering-rate term; 4.250 / 3.500 is what the port hits when the renderer keeps up. Housekeeping: Xvfb did not survive the restart again -- the exact failure the check-all display guard was written for, now with a second occurrence. Restored; the port runs on the GPU at 65-66 fps. Not settled: findings 3 and 4, both still without a surviving named cause; the clock origin, where their FRAMES=9000 capture reached 96 % of the movie and FRAMES=11000 should clear it; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
36 KiB
36 KiB