From cd87fe403d202bfc35470fb3b5924ba3b0e5500a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Stanley <1379tech@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2026 16:02:18 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?docs:=20retract=20G1.5=20=E2=80=94=20both=20tit?= =?UTF-8?q?les=20crack;=20partial=20coverage=20is=20not=20shippable?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User verified seams on Ape Escape AND Tomba 2 with the exact-table plus ambiguity-gate build. G1.5 claimed the gate fixed the cracking; it did not, and G1.4's original conclusion stands. Both wrong turns came from concluding on a single observation rather than a controlled A/B: first from native captures that structurally could not show the defect, then from one in-game frame where the corrected ~5% happened not to border a visible silhouette. The gate did remove vertices inheriting a neighbour's fraction, but ~5% coverage still mixes corrected and uncorrected triangles inside a mesh and those seams are visible. The crack is a property of the boundary, not of the error magnitude, so no coverage ratio short of near-total is shippable. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) --- ENHANCEMENTS.md | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) diff --git a/ENHANCEMENTS.md b/ENHANCEMENTS.md index c35eab6e..a794bca6 100644 --- a/ENHANCEMENTS.md +++ b/ENHANCEMENTS.md @@ -648,3 +648,31 @@ something that does not hurt. **Still to verify first-hand** with `screenshot_hires`, before any of this is called done: an A/B of the same frame with the knob off vs on, at supersampling >= 2. + +### G1.6 — G1.5 RETRACTED: both titles crack. Ambiguity gating is not enough. + +User verification on the exact-table + ambiguity-gate build, **Ape Escape AND +Tomba 2**: thin seams across meshes in both. G1.5 claimed the gate had fixed the +cracking; it had not. G1.4's original conclusion stands. + +**What went wrong in the analysis, twice:** each conclusion was drawn from a +SINGLE observation instead of a controlled A/B — first from native screenshots +that could not show the defect at all (G1.5), then from one favourable in-game +frame that happened not to expose it. A scene where the corrected ~5% of +triangles do not border a visible silhouette looks clean; that is not evidence +the seams are gone. + +**Settled position.** Ambiguity gating removed one failure mode (vertices +inheriting a neighbour's fraction) but coverage of ~5% still mixes corrected and +uncorrected triangles within a mesh, and those seams ARE visible. Partial +coverage is not shippable at any ratio short of near-total, because the crack is +a property of the boundary, not of the magnitude of the error. + +`geometry_correction` therefore stays OFF and must not be offered as usable +until precision propagates with the data (G1.2/G1.3). The launcher rows, the +`[video]` plumbing, the renderer-facade seam, `geom_correction` and +`screenshot_hires` all remain valid groundwork for that work. + +**Method rule for the next attempt:** no conclusion about this feature from a +single frame. Same frame, same scene, off vs on, captured with +`screenshot_hires`, on at least two titles.