fabi/Syplheed-Reborn
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: the other four ships are clean; automating the slab check failed

Browse Source 
Rendered f101/f105/f106/e105 statically -- all coherent, no stray masses, so the
e106 slab was specific. slab_screen.rs tries to automate the check by comparing
each part's min-axis extent to its ship median, but it produces identical flags
with and without the coverage fix at both 4x and 2.5x: it never sees
e106_bdy_03, the part it was built for. The eye used relationship (a mass apart
from the hull), not scale; a containment test is the right analogue and is not
built. Kept for what it does show: f002_bdy_22's 100000-unit tether and
t901_e01_D's mast are legitimate, and capture-verified f101_bdy_01 flags at 6x.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Claude (auto-RE)
2026-08-12 07:22:43 +00:00
parent f340815db6
commit 85ad540a7e
2 changed files with 100 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md
View File

@@ -1071,6 +1071,32 @@ Cost: **3** resources disc-wide (6 212 → 6 209); cross-container inconsistency
settled — but it is now consistent across four of the six containers that carry
it instead of three.)
### The other capital ships are clean — and an attempt to automate the slab check failed
`e106` was the first ship rendered, and it had the defect. The other four in the
`Stage_S02` cast — `f101` (ACROPOLIS), `f105`, `f106`, `e105` — were rendered the
same way and all assemble into coherent hulls with no stray masses.
Automating the check did **not** work. `examples/slab_screen.rs` compares each
base part against its ship's median extent (min-axis, so a legitimately long thin
antenna does not swamp the test) and flags outliers. Run against the decoder
**before and after** the coverage fix, at 4× and at 2.5×, it produces the **same
23 / 58 flags either way** — it never sees `e106_bdy_03`, the very part it was
built for. At 600×1600×998 against a ship median of ~250 the slab sits under
3×, and lowering the factor buys noise, not sensitivity.
What the eye actually used was not scale but **relationship**: a blocky mass
sitting apart from the hull silhouette. A containment test — does a part's box
lie within the envelope its neighbours describe? — is the right numeric analogue
and is not built yet.
The screen is kept anyway, because it is honest about what it does see: two
curiosities that are **legitimate**, not defects — `f002_bdy_22`/`_23` span
519 × **100 000** × 519 (a tether/elevator column, consistent in both containers
that carry it) and `t901_e01_D` is 58×59×3013 (a mast). And `f101_bdy_01` flags
at 6× while being **capture-verified exact** in the truth table — a useful
reminder that a bulky hull is not a bug.
### The anchor work has plateaued at 98.7 % — state and what is left
Four evidence-driven changes took the decoder from 5 480 to **6 212 of 6 294**