Files
Sylpheed/docs/port
Sylpheed port agent bc0718b18c port: the committed captures are CROPS, not resamples -- measured, and it saves a lot of evidence
The Decoder read Canary's cvars (present_letterbox true, safe area 100) and drew
the consequence that "everything either of us measures off a PNG carries the
resample -- every RMSE against a capture, every glyph count, every surface mean,
and the motion-census numbers on both sides."

That is a caveat on a very large amount of shared evidence, so it was worth one
measurement before anyone started qualifying results with it.

Pre-registered: if the captures carry a scale, SCALING this port's 1280x720
render to 1279x675 should beat CROPPING it. If they are crops, the reverse.

  render cropped to 1279x675    RMSE   558.1  (0.85 %)
  render scaled  to 1279x675    RMSE 10118.8  (15.4 %)

Cropping is 18x better. A 0.9375 vertical scale would put every feature on the
wrong row, and the residual under scaling is exactly what that looks like.

REFUTED: the consequence. Pixel comparisons against the committed captures are
like-for-like.

NOT REFUTED: the cvar reading. Canary may letterbox by default; this says
nothing about that. It says the capture path used for the corpus did not go
through it -- presenter bypassed, window 1:1, or the tool cropped the letterbox
before saving. Which, nobody has established.

📌 And a second line already agreed, one page away, unconnected:
ui-render-tone-curve.md records every committed capture aligning against our
render at exactly dy=0 dx=0, correlation 0.9466. A 0.9375 vertical scale cannot
produce a zero-offset alignment. The evidence for "crop" was already in the
corpus, next to the surface-size puzzle it explains.

Unchanged and worth keeping: their gamma negative (VdGetCurrentDisplayGamma is
kStub, the splash shader is four ALU ops with no pow/ramp/lookup), the
vertex-stream path being the better instrument where a question can be asked of
it, and motion-census never having been at risk -- a resample preserves change.

Reach: one capture, one screen. Enough to refute a universal; not enough to
establish that no capture anywhere carries a resample.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
2026-09-02 16:13:03 +00:00
..