The port challenged the by-size identification: both sweep sprites are the
same size, so size cannot separate pteff03 from pteff03a, and the two
leaves floor at 128 and 0. They were right, and it is broken a third way.
Their discriminator -- the leaves travel in opposite directions -- is in
the capture I already had. Both rows drift +2.19 and +2.18 in x, i.e. BOTH
LEFT TO RIGHT, so both are pteff03. The 0.7% size difference is per-frame
rounding splitting one element across two keys, not two elements. pteff03a
does not appear in this capture at all.
And my own presentation misled. The "alphas 8 24 33 50 58" I quoted were
sorted(set(...))[:9] -- the nine LOWEST DISTINCT values, not the series.
Read as a trajectory they look like a ramp from 8. They are a tail. The
counts: 9 of 1140 and 5 of 614 samples below 128, so 14 sub-floor samples
out of 1754.
The bound argument survives in shape and collapses in weight. A sample
below 128 is still unexplainable by a leaf flooring at 128, but 14 of 1754
is a thin tail and a tail is where a vertex-grouping slip or a partial
frame would show up. Downgraded to amber: not refuted, not established.
Settling it needs the same capture read as a SERIES rather than a set --
alpha against frame across t=70..100, where a multiplying parent must
produce a monotone ramp on nearly every frame rather than 14 stragglers.
One more read of data already on disk.
The port was right to hold the renderer. Adopting this would have changed a
rendering rule on every screen with a leaf, on 14 samples I had presented
as a trajectory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
7b952feca9