test(cliffs): show Vulcanus's residual is NOT the threshold effect Nauvis's is - #34
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…uvis's is Follow-up to #33, which attributed Nauvis's ~6% cliff residual to threshold sensitivity in the field. The obvious next move is to assume the same of Vulcanus's much larger gap. Measured instead, and it does not hold. Same boundary-proximity test, run against the smoothed field the gate actually sees, normalised by each planet's own interval so the 40-vs-120 difference does not do the talking: | | matched, median / interval | mismatched | separation | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Nauvis 123456 | 0.60% | 0.18% | 3.4x | | Vulcanus [0,0] | 3.7% | 1.5% | 2.4x | | Vulcanus [1500,1500] | 5.4% | 3.9% | 1.4x | | Vulcanus [-1200,800] | 5.3% | 2.2% | 2.4x | The effect is present on Vulcanus - wrong cells are consistently nearer a boundary than right ones - but far weaker, and they are NOT knife-edge: 1.5-3.9% of an interval against Nauvis's 0.18%, an order of magnitude out. **A field-precision fix would not close Vulcanus's residual.** Whatever is left there is structural and still unidentified. Pinned deliberately rather than left as a note: generalising a Nauvis result to both planets is the exact mistake that made `cliff_smoothing` cost two months ("a no-op in this path" - true of Nauvis only). Also pins Nauvis's own knife-edge figure (< 0.5% of an interval) so the two assertions read as a matched pair. Refs #18, #22. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016vZjgASLZyxUfXx1dsq2HX
This was referenced Jul 28, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #33, which attributed Nauvis's ~6% cliff residual to threshold sensitivity in the field. The obvious next move is to assume the same of Vulcanus's much larger gap. I measured instead, and it does not hold.
Same boundary-proximity test, run against the smoothed field the gate actually sees, normalised by each planet's own interval so the 40-vs-120 difference doesn't do the talking:
[0,0][1500,1500][-1200,800]The effect is present on Vulcanus - wrong cells are consistently nearer a boundary than right ones - but far weaker, and they are not knife-edge: 1.5-3.9% of an interval against Nauvis's 0.18%, an order of magnitude out.
So a field-precision fix would not close Vulcanus's residual. Whatever is left there is structural and still unidentified. That's worth knowing before anyone spends a session chasing f32-vs-f64 on the assumption it fixes both planets.
Pinned as a test rather than left as a note, deliberately: generalising a Nauvis result to both planets is the exact mistake that made
cliff_smoothingcost two months ("a no-op in this path" - true of Nauvis only). Also pins Nauvis's own knife-edge figure so the two assertions read as a matched pair.Tests and notes only, no
src/change.pnpm run verify: 1182 passed, 0 failed.🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_016vZjgASLZyxUfXx1dsq2HX