bbe339d856
Every F5/F6 figure comes from captures taken for other purposes and re-analysed after the reader and three labels were corrected. None has been tested out of sample. Six predictions registered before the capture, five of them checkable by check_labels.py, which now takes --cap NAME=path. Prediction 6 is the one already got wrong once (0.057 against ptcopyright instead of 0.14 against the real plate), and is stated so a landing near 0.057 would show the correction itself was wrong. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
1.5 KiB
Pre-registration — F6's numbers on a boot that did not produce them
Committed before the capture is taken. Every F5/F6 figure I hold comes from
f6, f6b, f5 or f5-early — captures taken for other purposes, several
re-analysed after I fixed the draw reader and corrected three element labels.
None has been tested out of sample. A number re-derived from the same log
that suggested it is not independent evidence.
One fresh no-input boot. Five predictions, all phase-free, all failing loudly if wrong:
| # | quantity | predicted |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | pteff03a period / pteff03 period |
1.200 ±5 % |
| 2 | strip length ratio (sy 800/600) |
1.333 ±6 % |
| 3 | pulse period / sweep loop | 0.100 ±5 % |
| 4 | pulse amplitude vs ptbtn00f.rat's declared 8-key curve |
≤3 alpha levels mean error |
| 5 | ptcopyright ramp / parent ramp |
0.733 ±8 % |
And one that is not in the checker, stated here so it cannot be quietly dropped:
| 6 | sweep enters before ptbtn00f, by | 0.138–0.141 of a sweep loop |
⚠️ Prediction 6 is the one I got wrong once already — I measured it against
ptcopyright and published 0.057. If the fresh run lands near 0.057 rather than
0.14, the correction was wrong and the original figure was right.
A pass is the boring outcome. The value is that five of the six are checks a wrong reader or a wrong label would fail, and the reader and two of the labels have been wrong inside the last day.