Two milestones' known-wrong bits, both now answered by the RE agent, both taken.
P5 -- the focus ring. It was drawn at 0 with a comment saying so. The period is
now measured (continuous spin, eight evenly spaced autocorrelation peaks over
nine revolutions, no angle estimated anywhere) and it needs NO authored
constant: the period is the element's own declared t=120, and what the
measurement adds is only that the turn repeats rather than stopping -- which
"groups hold" could not decide, because 0 and 360 are the same pose.
`spin_period_units` is structural and narrow on purpose: two keyframes,
differing in nothing but rotation_deg, by a full 360, first timed and second
untimed. 16 of 212 elements in this export match and all 16 are focus rings,
zero false positives. That check is the point -- the measurement was taken on
ONE button of ONE screen, and a rule that caught anything else would be
extrapolating it to elements nobody watched.
Verified on the port's own render with the RE agent's own control: bit-identical
one period apart across the whole frame, 3.6/255 inside the ring's box at
quarter-period steps, and box luminance conserved to 0.027 % over eight phases
-- which is the observable they used to separate rotation from a pulse. Not
claimed: direction (no signed angle was ever measured) and phase across a focus
change (their run held focus throughout).
P3 -- the plate. Last iteration I refuted their authoring instruction and
shipped it anyway rather than pick between two of their numbers. The refutation
held and the answer came back better than either option I offered: AUTHOR
NOTHING. Both builds run on one clock started together and the plate arrives at
its own declared t=238. The 2.13 s constant is deleted.
The premise that failed was mine: rest.t IS NOT WHEN A SCREEN SETTLES. It is the
last hold keyframe before the exit. ptlogo1 stops MOVING at t=42 and then creeps
5 px and 31 alpha steps to t=251. Reading rest.t put build 4's arrival at 4.350 s
instead of 1.967 s, and the "2.51 s, which is not a landmark of anything" I sent
them is that error wearing a decimal point. 238 - 118 = 120 units = 2.000 s
against a measured 2.135 s at 28.1 fps presentation. Checked against my own
export before touching anything.
`ScreenView.settle_time()` still uses rest.t, and so the boot sequencer paces
every screen off the wrong landmark. NOT changed here: "visible arrival" is a
heuristic and getting it wrong re-paces everything. Filed, and asked for a timed
boot instead now that their oracle is live.
REFUTATION: two of their pages measure the same declared 120 units of wall clock
during a static hold and disagree by 2 % -- plate 2.135 s (28.10 fps implied),
ring 2.177 s (27.56 fps). That is seven times the plate page's own 6 ms
run-to-run agreement, and it lands on the argument that page uses to justify
itself: "the build-in is where frames are dropped; the static hold is not". Also
the ring page's band, 27.6-28.8 fps, does not contain its own measurement -- the
mean needs 27.56 and four of seven spacings are outside. Filed, not worked
around: my port uses the declared 120 units either way.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WM5XL4HfrHuxz8RiMWdCMC
f8a8d17327