Refuted by the Decoder (f6-unit11): the two strips are batched into a single
additive eight-vertex draw -- two quads -- and their log reader took the first
vertex match per draw line and discarded the rest. Every analysis saw quad A and
never quad B. No new capture was needed; pteff03a was in the same logs that were
read as declaring it absent.
Three of my claims fall with it, including one I put in a report to the human:
'the port draws two, the game's capture has one'. The port draws two and so does
the game. My census stands; it now AGREES with the capture instead of
contradicting it.
✅ Nothing in the port changed. I proposed gating pteff03a and held, because
absence in one capture read by one probe is a lead not a finding, and because the
check I asked for was a human's look rather than another measurement. That hold
is the only reason this cost nothing.
⚠️ The absence claim cited the port drawing pteff03a as evidence the PORT was
wrong -- a defect inferred in my renderer from a gap in a reader.
Recorded generally: an absence is a claim about an instrument, not the world. A
count of zero says only that nothing got through the reader. Every positive
result on the same capture is untouched because those compare like with like on
one quad; only the absence compared a count against zero.
dd1da9b698