dcfb53bc9b
Coherence on BGM_103, the menu's bank, with controls run first: a real linear filter of wave 0 reads 0.93-0.94 in every band, a different bank reads 0.001, and wave 0 misaligned by 1 s reads 0.004-0.057. The measurement reads 0.027 at 1-4 kHz, so the 'wave 1 is wave 0 filtered' model is refuted. The frequency structure is inverted relative to any mic-pair or reverb model: coherence rises with frequency (0.169 -> 0.827) while energy falls (71 % -> 0.2 %), and a rear pair decorrelates fastest at HF. In the midrange the two waves are 13x further apart than the two channels of one wave. But the L-R control is what limits the tool and it is recorded as such: within one wave, genuinely one performance in two channels, coherence is only 0.221-0.497. So 'same performance' does not imply high coherence here, my positive control was the wrong model of the rear-pair reading, and the 🟡 is NOT settled. The tool tests for linear filtering and neither surviving reading requires it. Also corrects MISSION's Q10 row, which still carried the refuted three-sub-wave premise and had directed work at a dead question for days. Its gate is in fact met. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
4.2 KiB
4.2 KiB