eea55b9900
The brief asked which of two declared events the human sees. Neither. With no input the sweep pair enters 34 frames (f6b) and 67 frames (f6) before ptcopyright -- 0.057 of a sweep loop in both, agreeing to 1.2% across runs that differ 2x in frames. With A pressed during the build-in the separation is 2 frames. A reveals the plate and restarts both sweep leaves at t=0 in the same frame, so a player who presses A sees them start together and reports exactly that. The control that makes it an explanation: in the late-press run A landed after the sweep had already started naturally and the two are 29 frames apart -- same input, opposite result, decided by when the press falls. Consequence for the port: do NOT start the sweep with the plate. That fits one boot and breaks the other. The declared gate plus the snap restarting leaves produces both observations with nothing authored. Refutation attempt: looked for a case where the port's current behaviour fails against these four captures; found none. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
2.9 KiB
F6 — the human is watching their own Ⓐ press, not either declared event
Question: why does a person see the glow start exactly when the plate appears, when the declared data starts it far earlier?
What the human looks at: boot, and press Ⓐ early — the glow and the
PRESS Ⓐ plate come up together. Then boot again and press nothing: the glow
arrives clearly first, well before the plate.
What this does NOT cover: the 238…250 exit ramp (already settled as an
exit), and anything about the menu.
Instrument: ⟨capture⟩ ×4 — two no-input controls, two with a press.
The brief asked which of two declared events this is. It is neither.
| sweep pair enters | ptcopyright |
separation | |
|---|---|---|---|
f6b no input |
f577 | f611 | 34 frames |
f6 no input |
f746 | f813 | 67 frames |
f5-early Ⓐ during build-in |
f438 | f436 | 2 frames |
f5 Ⓐ after the sweep already started |
f427 | f456 | 29 frames |
Phase-free, as a fraction of the sweep's own 600-unit loop: the controls give 34/600 = 0.057 and 67/1168 = 0.057 — agreeing to 1.2 % across runs that differ 2× in frames — against ~0.003 when Ⓐ lands early.
Ⓐ collapses the gap by a factor of ~18. It reveals the plate and restarts
both sweep leaves at their own t=0 in the same frame
(f5-verified-with-full-quad-reader.md),
so the two events become simultaneous because the player caused both.
Why the report and the data both stand
The human presses Ⓐ to get through the boot — that is what a player does — and at that instant the plate appears and the glow restarts together. Their observation is accurate. It is a description of a boot with a press in it, not of the declared timeline.
The last row is the check that makes this an explanation rather than a story: in
f5 the press landed after the sweep had already started on its own, and the
two are 29 frames apart. Same input, opposite result, decided only by when
the press falls.
🔴 What the port must not do
Do not start the sweep when the plate appears. That reproduces one boot and breaks the other: with no input the glow genuinely precedes the plate by 0.057 of a sweep loop. The correct behaviour is both of the pieces already delivered —
- the declared parent gate, α0 until
t=70, full att=100; and - Ⓐ restarting both leaves at
t=0as it advances the shared clock.
Together those produce the human's observation and the no-input one, with nothing authored.
Refutation attempt
I tried to find a case where the port's current behaviour (declared gate + snap restarting leaves) fails against these captures, and could not. All four runs are consistent with it. Recorded as an attempt that did not land.
Not settled
- The per-cycle phase fit for the post-wrap decomposition.
- Wrap-to-wrap sweep period: still one wrap per capture.