The Round 1 result and the evidence it rests on: C1 and C2 each reproduce
all 27 precommitted sample points on both required adapters, 108 samples
in total, every one exactly opaque black or opaque white. Neither
candidate is eliminated at this rung.
Anchored to three SHAs, per pin 12 -- root baseline 0a35697, oracle
0a35697, candidate harness c20bc93. The authoritative run was made from a
detached worktree at the baseline with the harness extracted into it, so
the glyph outlines came from frozen epiphany-glyphs and not from a working
tree the parallel genesis-ops track has been editing throughout.
Two findings are recorded because they matter after this round is over.
A blank target is a silent pass shape and it actually happened here: C1
failed all 15 ink points while passing all 12 background points, which is
the signature of nothing being drawn rather than of a fill bug. Had this
round tested only background points, or only "renders without erroring",
a blank target would have passed it. Every later round needs at least one
assertion that can only succeed if ink was deposited.
And nominal 8x AA is not the same mechanism on both sides. Pin 4 asks for
an identical sample count and gets one, but C1's 8x is a hardware
multisample attachment while C2's is vello's compute AA into a
single-sample texture. Round 1 is indifferent; Round 4 is not, since AA is
in the deciding latency numbers, so the report prints the mechanism beside
the number rather than leaving "8 == 8" to imply parity.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RSX4zSLgKvtiXaPjnMqLGz
Levi Neuwirth
c10449a964