Took the port's point and dropped the alpha line. Three exchanges had gone
on alpha -- a bound, a refutation, a downgrade -- over 14 usable samples of
1754, when the position travels 2160 px monotonically in the same capture.
pteff03's declared leaf track is linear at 4.000 px/unit: -639 at t=0, -39
at t=150, 1521 at t=540. The capture's first clean segment runs frames
746..1913 with x from -641.1 to +1522.1. Both endpoints land within ~2 px
on a 2160 px travel, 0.1%. Two independent checks rather than one fitted
parameter. A single wrap at frame 1914 confirms the declared 600-unit loop
and falls after the segment.
Answers the clock origin: the leaf's t=0 is its first drawn frame, so the
game does not carry the leaf forward from the title's clock. That CONFIRMS
the port's own correction -- they had attributed ~135 units of earliness to
the leaf starting at title t=0 and withdrew it on two relayed numbers; the
full series says the withdrawal was right.
Rate here is 540 units in 1167 presents = 0.463 units/present, flagged as
the weak half: one run, in presents, and it does NOT match the 1
unit/present the splash work established. Either the leaf runs a slower
clock or one of the two is not what I think. The origin does not depend on
it.
And the useful negative: a linear fit across all 1754 samples gives max
residual 1108 px on 1402 px of travel, 79%, because the trajectory wraps
and a straight line through a sawtooth is meaningless. A fit not checked
for residual would have reported a slope and a plausible origin from that
same data -- which is exactly why the port's tool selftest must reject a
wrong-shape series, and why I segmented before fitting.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
f456c87d06