TWO RESULTS, both correcting things I had written.
THE NARROW SETTLE WINDOWS ARE NOT A GAP. Adopting the settle instant left
main_menu and extras on per-element rest() -- windows of 12 units, below the
30-unit bar -- and I recorded that as something left behind. rest() is malformed
only for a TRANSIENT, and the transients are precisely on the screens whose
windows are wide: title (76) has ten, publisher_logo (190) and developer_logos
(145) have one and three, and main_menu and extras have NONE. The discriminator
is returning to dark far before the screen's own end -- ptlogo_back2eff1 is dark
again at t=58 while the title runs to t=269 -- as against the ordinary
fade-in-hold-fade-out every menu element has, where rest at 255 IS the settled
pose. Not claimed as a rule: two screens having narrow windows and no transients
could be coincidence, and n=2 is where I have gone wrong before.
REFUTED, MINE: "the menu residual is localised on the ptloop sweeps", which I
have written twice. It came from reading the BOUNDING BOX, which sat at (441,230)
-- the sweep position. Sweeping the leaf's phase against the live-menu capture:
0.063% at t=60, 0.183% mid-screen at t=350, 0.061% parked at t>=600. With them
parked the box is 834x358 at (445,167) -- the button column, where the focus
signature lives. On extras the same test moves the box (398x295 at the sweep
position, then 736x525 spread) while the magnitude barely changes, 0.192% against
0.200%.
So the box moves with the sweeps and the residual does not. A bounding box over
scattered pixels tells you where the outermost differing pixels are, not where
the difference is -- and I had been quoting it as if it localised a cause.
verify-capture prints that box, so this is a caution about reading my own tool.
And a first piece of evidence on whether the sweeps loop: the disc gives one pass
ending parked off-screen, ORACLE-CAPTURES says they "move continuously" which I
had read as implying a loop, and the idle menu capture matches best with them
OFF-SCREEN. One capture and a weak instrument for an absence, but it is the first
evidence either way and it points against looping.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
8fb5ac8743