sylpheed-port reported verify-dwell at 4.28 s / 3.58 s and called it agreement
with my three cold boots. Checked the arithmetic instead of the impression, and
it is not agreement with the DISC.
publisher 240 u = 4.000 s at Q1's 60 u/s measured 4.297/4.604/4.370 mean 4.424
developer 195 u = 3.250 s measured 3.508/3.503/3.366 mean 3.459
All six ratios exceed 1 -- 1.074, 1.151, 1.093, 1.079, 1.078, 1.036, mean 1.085 --
implying 54.3 and 56.4 units/s. The port's own two numbers imply 56.1 and 54.5.
Four estimates, none at 60.
The obvious explanation fails: a detector triggering early and late would lengthen
the interval, but the declared span IS 15->255 and outside it the alpha is 0, so
there is nothing on screen to trigger on. An 8.5 % overshoot is 20 units, ten
rendered frames, which no threshold can manufacture from a blank screen.
Recorded as an open qualification on Q1 rather than a correction: three boots per
screen is thin, and Q1 was measured on a different quantity. It is also NOT the
same discrepancy as the sweep leaf's, which runs ~50 % slow rather than 8.5 %.
For the port: the dwells remain decoded and should still not be authored, but a
port playing 240 units at exactly 60 u/s shows the publisher splash for 0.42 s
less than the game does.
METHOD gains the reusable half of the (A) result, which the port named: a probe
whose observation window is shorter than the effect reports a CLEAN NEGATIVE.
(A) takes 4-6 s; a script that presses and looks 0.5 s later concludes the press
was dropped, with nothing in its log to say otherwise. Check the window against
the latency before believing a null, and sample repeatedly when the latency is
unknown.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
c354ee615d