0cbef2023f
The coordinator refuted the broad form of my claim and was correct to. The older reading put section 2 at chunk+offset with the normal at intra-record +16, which addresses exactly the same bytes as chunk+0x10+offset with the normal at +0: on 3506e972 both put face record 0's normal at 0x1c700. Its unit-normal and n·p+d results were measuring real planes and stand. What is actually wrong is the record BOUNDARY, and it decides which record the four integer words belong to — the face adjacency, i.e. the field the whole correlation search was looking for. Settled: requiring own==f and tet[A].faces[i]==f gives 100.000% with the block from record f and 0.000% from record f+1, on all 11 objects. Also audits my own numbers for the same defect the coordinator found in the point-in-bbox test: most of them are content tests that address identical bytes under either convention and have no power over the origin. The four that do have power are listed, including that POF0 at base+0 would relocate the u16 counts and leave the section pointers unrelocated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PMRJjbxLqZtsb5Vb7KunPE