Their corrected least-squares fit gives 4.287 and -4.348 px/frame against my
declared 4.000 and 4.063 px/unit: 1.072 and 1.070 units/frame, where Q1
establishes 2 for top-level elements.
My port drives everything from one clock -- boot.gd:375, time_units += delta *
units_per_second at 60 units/s -- and the leaf path reads that same clock. So the
title's sweeps cross in 10.0 s where the game takes 18.7, a visible 1.87x defect
in what the boot ships.
Not changed, and not only out of caution: keyframe_units_per_second is authored
from a measurement and governs build-in, transitions and the plate. Changing it
globally breaks the top-level timing Q1 measured; a leaf-only clock is a claim
about how the game works rather than about my renderer. That is a Q1 sub-question
and theirs.
Refutation attempt on their strongest argument: two strips agreeing to three
significant figures constrains the strips to EACH OTHER, not the absolute rate.
Both ratios come from one capture under one fps assumption, so a systematic error
scales both identically and the agreement survives. Their own untested candidate --
1 unit per 1/30 s at 28.5 fps gives 1.053 -- sits within that uncertainty of 1.070.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
3f2dd46487