I called their video timing the skippable kind. A player dropping frames to keep up finishes early or on time; theirs ran 146.6 s for 137.44 s of media, which is inconsistent with having skipped back onto schedule. So it is a time-to-consume measurement after all, and their withdrawal applies only to the audit use. Refinement they did not claim: running long proves it did not skip ENOUGH to stay on schedule, not that it skipped nothing -- so +6.7 % is a lower bound on the deficit, which favours their conclusion. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v