0c9224fbbc
The proposal: pose every element at the SCREEN's settle instant rather than asking each element for its own resting pose. On the 2 249 fallback elements in settling bundles the visible-pose rate falls 73.6 % -> 34.7 %. But the control fails twice. Naive, over every plateau element: 46.6 %. That one was misspecified and I caught it by asking what the number means physically -- rest() finds *a* held pose and many elements hold one during the build-in then move on, so it answers a different question and disagreement proves nothing. Restricted to elements HOLDING ACROSS the settle instant: 78.1 %, still not a pass. And the residual is ambiguous by construction: rest_plateau() picks one plateau, so an element with two whose settle instant falls in the other will disagree -- and there pose_at(settle) is RIGHT. The control cannot separate 'the candidate is wrong' from 'the incumbent is wrong'. Recorded as the general point: comparing a candidate to the incumbent cannot adjudicate when the incumbent is the thing under suspicion. It is the wrong shape of experiment, not a tuning problem. What does adjudicate is the oracle and it is the port's measurement, not mine -- publisher splash against a committed capture, settle-instant pose RMSE 2.17 / 0.01 % differing against --pose=rest 9.05 / 0.75 %. My numbers describe the proposal's effect; they do not establish it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
53 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
53 lines
2.7 KiB
Plaintext
# Should the settled pose come from each element's rest(), or from the SCREEN's
|
|
# settle instant? 2026-08-30. examples/rest_vs_settle.rs
|
|
#
|
|
bundles skipped as never-settling (window < 10 units): 896
|
|
|
|
CONTROL — elements where rest() takes the SOUND plateau path:
|
|
8171 plateau elements in settling bundles
|
|
4796 of them HOLD ACROSS the settle instant — the fair control
|
|
pose_at(settle) agrees with rest() on 3748 of those (78.1 %)
|
|
|
|
TEST — elements where the unsound dwell fallback decides:
|
|
2249 elements
|
|
rest() returns a VISIBLE pose on 1655 (73.6 %)
|
|
pose_at(settle) returns a VISIBLE pose on 781 (34.7 %)
|
|
|
|
--- END (if this line is missing, the run did not finish) ---
|
|
#
|
|
# THE PROPOSAL: pose every element at UiBuild::settle_time() -- the midpoint of
|
|
# the longest keyframe-free interval ACROSS THE BUILD -- instead of asking each
|
|
# element for its own resting pose. That is the port agent's 're-key on the
|
|
# screen's span rather than the element's', and its shipped path already does it.
|
|
#
|
|
# WHAT THE TEST SHOWS: on the 2 249 fallback elements in settling bundles, the
|
|
# visible-pose rate falls 73.6 % -> 34.7 %. Consistent with the proposal
|
|
# removing transient peaks.
|
|
#
|
|
# 🔴 BUT MY CONTROL CANNOT VALIDATE IT, and that is the finding.
|
|
#
|
|
# naive control, all plateau elements: 46.6 % agreement
|
|
# fair control, only those HOLDING ACROSS the settle: 78.1 %
|
|
#
|
|
# The naive one was misspecified and I caught it by asking what 46.6 % means
|
|
# physically: rest() finds *a* held pose, many elements hold one during the
|
|
# build-in and then move on, and pose_at(settle) asks what is on screen when
|
|
# the screen has SETTLED. Different questions; disagreement proves nothing.
|
|
#
|
|
# The fair control's 78.1 % is still not a pass -- and worse, its 21.9 %
|
|
# residual is AMBIGUOUS BY CONSTRUCTION. rest_plateau() picks one plateau; an
|
|
# element with two, whose settle instant falls in the other, will disagree --
|
|
# and there pose_at(settle) is RIGHT and rest() is wrong. So the control
|
|
# cannot separate 'the candidate is wrong' from 'the incumbent is wrong'.
|
|
#
|
|
# ⚠️ COMPARING A CANDIDATE TO THE INCUMBENT CANNOT ADJUDICATE WHEN THE
|
|
# INCUMBENT IS THE THING UNDER SUSPICION. No amount of care with this control
|
|
# fixes that; it is the wrong shape of experiment.
|
|
#
|
|
# ✅ WHAT DOES ADJUDICATE IS THE ORACLE, AND IT IS NOT MINE. The port measured
|
|
# its publisher splash against a committed capture in both poses:
|
|
# timeline (settle-instant) pose RMSE 2.17 0.01 % differing
|
|
# --pose=rest RMSE 9.05 0.75 % differing
|
|
# 75x the differing area, against the game. That is the evidence for the
|
|
# proposal. My numbers describe its effect; they do not establish it.
|