Ask #2 answered: t=357.7 was never fitted against a PNG. It is a GPU per-draw
vertex capture, four observables at once.
They handed me the discriminator rather than running it, since the fit is against
my renderer. At my t=400, pteff03a computes to 294.9 against their predicted 295,
and my computation reproduces their published t=355 control (980.5/477.7 against
981/478). So the two numbers describe different frames and neither is wrong.
Why they could never match: the leaves free-run at 600 and 720 units (verified
from my export as each leaf's last keyframe) while the top-level clock stops at
settle, so two captures of one settled title share a screen time and not a sweep
phase. A SWEEP POSITION CANNOT DATE A FRAME -- I had been treating my ~400 as a
property of the capture.
Also records their failed refutation of my number: they hypothesised the fit was
minimised by the quad leaving the screen, the same shape as their .tbm control
that could not fail. At t=400 quad B is fully on screen. It survives.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
7c8eb201e7