The page recorded the substituted-versus-additive distinction as unverified, with
the port controlling it. It passes.
A real music and SFX bed of 137.37 s, itself carrying 454 genuine zero runs --
which is what makes it an honest control -- had 1149 holes inserted at 8.37
gaps/s to +9.9 percent length, matching the measured ALSA profile, then stripped:
original vs itself (ceiling) r 1.000 lag 0.0 s margin +0.141
padded vs original r 0.436 lag -12.2 margin +0.006
stripped vs original r 1.000 lag 0.0 margin +0.142
Two things beyond the yes. It runs the inference forwards: padding at this
profile puts correlation squarely in the known-absent regime on a file whose
contents are controlled, so the earlier captures were unusable for the reason
claimed rather than for some other one -- until now that was reasoning backwards
from a failure to a cause. And only one side needs stripping, since the stripped
capture matches the UNSTRIPPED source at the ceiling, so a capture needs no
preprocessing before being handed over and there is no shared step to get out of
sync on.
The danger is recorded as the part to repeat: stripping removes genuine silence
too and cannot tell the two apart, so it is exact on additive ALSA padding and
vandalism on a PulseAudio monitor capture where the silence replaced real audio.
Running it on the wrong artefact would look like it worked.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QsEPXWVaEpyfudtR6re1Pd
a13dd42c2d