sylpheed-port aimed my own boundary finding at my loop-length control. Reproduced
from my reader over every pak: +0x04 has 0 violations too, so the falsifier rejects
+0x0c and accepts +0x04 and never discriminated. What identifies +0x08 is the
exactness statistic the page presents as secondary -- exact match in half the
records against 0 % for +0x04.
Population differs from theirs, 3311 records against 1781, because this scan takes
every pak and requires a timed keyframe, so the percentage moves but the
discrimination does not.
Second time this week with the weight on the wrong leg: a count taking credit for an
exclusion argument, now a falsifier taking credit for an exactness statistic, and
both times the real discriminator sat beside it described as a formality.
Their general form is sharper than my boundary rule: an interior consistency check
is satisfied by any internally consistent reading, and that is what a wrong offset
into a regular structure usually is.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
73c2b31e1b