be1485f7b4
The port recomputed the publisher splash's widest keyframe-free gap as 190 units against my 8 and said one reading must be wrong. Mine was, and the library was never wrong -- only my invocation. From the file: entry 10's union of times is [0,15,30,45,235,239,251,255], widest gap 190, and settle_window() returns Some((45,235)). Entry 11 gives 145. Both match the port exactly. The cause is that screen render --build N takes a BUILD ORDINAL. screen list says [10] entry 12 and [11] entry 15; the splashes are entries 10 and 11 and are not screen builds at all, so my --build 10/11 rendered the LOADING screens. This is the foot-gun HANDOFF already documents, which the port caught months ago in the mirror direction. Three retractions: 1. 'Width does not predict quality' -- withdrawn. It rested entirely on the splashes being width 8 while winning 75x. They are the widest of the five, so width and mid-ramp are perfectly confounded across every screen either of us has measured and the width hypothesis is NOT refuted. 2. 'My filter excluded the splashes' -- withdrawn; at 190 and 145 they were never near the 10-unit cutoff. The other half stands: it admitted the 10-19 bucket, the worst at 45.1 %. 3. The splash rows of settle-vs-rest-against-captures -- void. They scored loading-screen renders against splash captures. I discarded them for a railed gamma fit; the real reason is that they were the wrong screens, and the railing was that mismatch surfacing where my instrument could report it. Surviving: the title row (ordinal 4 = entry 4) and the disc-wide censuses, which iterate pak entries directly and never touch the ordinal path. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
1.5 KiB
1.5 KiB