Resolve the SBlk discrepancy: 40 is the record, markers are nested
A fine scan settles it in favour of 40: stride 40 +0.454 stride 39 +0.266 stride 41 +0.215 stride 38 +0.214 The peak is sharp and isolated, nearly twice its immediate neighbours, and the multiples confirm it: 80 scores +0.376, 120 +0.394, 160 +0.340, while the multiples of 12 (24, 48, 96, 144) all sit at 0.21 to 0.24. So the record is 40 bytes and the 0x7f/0x47f markers at 12-byte spacing are a nested structure inside those records, not the record boundary. Their spacing is irregular -- 12, 24 and larger -- which is what one would expect of a field present in some records and absent in others. The previous commit's "they disagree" framing was itself wrong in one respect: the marker spacing never claimed to be the record size. Read as a claim about markers inside records rather than about the record itself, the two measurements were never in conflict, and I had set up a false dichotomy between them.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -592,7 +592,28 @@ explaining the other. Recorded as an open discrepancy rather than resolved in
|
|||||||
favour of either: the marker spacing says 12, the period says 40, and 40 being
|
favour of either: the marker spacing says 12, the period says 40, and 40 being
|
||||||
twice as strong is the more surprising of the two.
|
twice as strong is the more surprising of the two.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
This is the first place in this project where two sound measurements of the
|
### Resolved: 40 is the record, the 12-byte markers are nested
|
||||||
same data point at incompatible answers. Worth resolving before any record
|
|
||||||
layout is attempted, because a layout built on the wrong one will parse
|
A fine scan settles it in favour of 40.
|
||||||
plausibly and be wrong.
|
|
||||||
|
| stride | excess |
|
||||||
|
|---|---|
|
||||||
|
| **40** | **+0.454** |
|
||||||
|
| 39 | +0.266 |
|
||||||
|
| 41 | +0.215 |
|
||||||
|
| 38 | +0.214 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The peak is sharp and isolated -- nearly twice its immediate neighbours.
|
||||||
|
And the multiples confirm it: 80 scores +0.376, 120 +0.394, 160 +0.340,
|
||||||
|
while the multiples of 12 (24, 48, 96, 144) all sit at 0.21-0.24.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
So the record is **40 bytes**, and the `0x7f`/`0x47f` markers at 12-byte
|
||||||
|
spacing are a nested structure *inside* those records rather than the record
|
||||||
|
boundary. Their spacing is irregular -- 12, 24 and larger -- which is exactly
|
||||||
|
what one would expect of a field that is present in some records and absent in
|
||||||
|
others.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The earlier "they disagree" framing was wrong in one respect: the marker
|
||||||
|
spacing never claimed to be the record size. Read as a claim about markers
|
||||||
|
inside records rather than about the record itself, the two measurements were
|
||||||
|
never in conflict.
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user