S6_R7_AND_FWHM_RULINGS_2026-08-10.md

decisions/S6_R7_AND_FWHM_RULINGS_2026-08-10.md

THE R-6/R-7 TENSION AND THE FWHM BASE-CAGE-VS-S7 RULINGS

**2026-08-10, director (milks sixteenth seat, claim 1ffa183d). The two rulings the

second-succession owed board minted (docs/PIPELINE_LEDGER.md:6060) and the S6 stage-proving run

named rather than smoothed (build/3d/best_a14/retopo_s6/S6_WRAP_STAGE_PROVING.md, THE TENSION

block and R-3's FINDING FOR THE DIRECTOR). Both run the standing decision protocol: steelmanned

alternatives, deep-dive against the landed numbers, adversarial pass both directions per the

care-calibration law, recommendation APPLIED. Binding on runs adjudicated AFTER this lands — no

live lane's pre-registered terms change. No threshold is loosened anywhere in this document: the

C4 floor 0.0314159265 stands, the eight-decimals identity bar stands for the class that can meet

it, and the ≥ 3-across-FWHM number survives both rulings intact.**

---

RULING 1 — R-7 IS A TWO-CLASS LAW (the R-6/R-7 tension)

The tension, as the record states it

R-6: *"Auto-retopo is the right tool for props and creatures; it is the wrong tool for a hero

character's deforming regions"* (CRAFT_AI_3D_GENERATION.md:527-528, the practice law restated

:686-696; charter §S6). R-7 as written carries TWO halves (CRAFT_AI_3D_GENERATION.md:700-705):

the PRECEDENT — *"the A2_CLEAN precedent — identical to A1_GENERATE to eight decimals on all four

channels and all three views — is the house standard"* — and the RULE — *"Any topology-changing

stage publishes the same comparison through p1_score.py against the C4 sensitivity floor."* The

law never says what "the same comparison" MEANS for a stage that replaces every vertex: identical

to WHAT baseline, delta read HOW. The stage-proving run's own words: **"a wrap cannot be identical

to eight decimals; it replaces every vertex. R-6 (wrapped template) and R-7 (prove it is free) are

in tension as written"** (S6_WRAP_STAGE_PROVING.md, THE TENSION; instruments.py I4 recorded it

before the run). This ruling defines the comparison rather than rewriting the law.

Alternatives, steelmanned

1. Status quo — the eight-decimals precedent read as the bar for every stage. The strongest

reading of the original law's precedent half: any stage that cannot prove eight-decimals

identity is not trusted. Consequence, measured: the S6 wrap can NEVER pass — not a hard wrap,

not a perfect one — because vertex replacement is the stage's definition. This bans the stage

the S6 RULING adopted on forcing evidence (charter :1214-1226, OPEN-15). The two director

rulings would then contradict, and the practical result is the worst state on the board: the

stage runs anyway (it is adopted) with NO free-proof at all governing it, because the rule

half's "same comparison" stays undefined for a stage with no identity baseline.

2. A higher floor for wraps. Loosen the C4 floor for topology-replacing stages since they

"can't help moving things." REFUSED on its face — the loosening direction is the banned

direction; a stage that moves the silhouette more than the C4 floor has moved likeness, whoever

moved it.

3. Exempt S6 from R-7 and rely on conformance p95 alone. The stage-proving run already

falsified this: conformance p95 read 0.2867 cm while the back-view silhouette was +15.65× over

the C4 floor — *"a conformance p95 of 0.2867 cm and a silhouette delta of 15.65× the floor are

not in [agreement]. That is precisely why R-7 exists as a separate proof"*

(S6_WRAP_STAGE_PROVING.md). Conformance measures distance-to-surface; the lens measures what

the plates see. They disagree exactly when it matters.

4. Two-class restatement (RECOMMENDED, APPLIED). R-7 splits by what the stage claims:

dilation): the bar as written. Identical to eight decimals, clean_shells.py precedent,

unchanged in every particular.

vertices): the paired-baseline method the stage-proving run used, and the only resolution

the evidence allows (its own words): score the wrap AND the subject it wrapped against the

SAME plates under the SAME lens in the SAME run, and read the per-view DELTA against the C4

floor. Bar: |delta| < 0.0314159265 on EVERY view under EVERY convention (AS_SCORED,

C1_CLIP_GUARD_DISARMED, C2_ISOTROPIC_NO_ALIGN — the ROUTE_A_RESIDUALS.md FINDING 4

roster; all three published, none picked). Views are never averaged and an improvement on

one view never buys another — the S5 side-likeness lesson (ANATOMY_REFIT_V2.md:202-205).

Baseline = the subject scored fresh in the same run, so the subject's number is pinned and

"both moved together" cannot hide.

Adversarial pass, both directions

silhouette holds? R-7b governs the FREE-proof only — it is NECESSARY, never sufficient. It does

not absorb or replace the stage's other instruments: quad fraction, loop presence, I3 landmark

edge density, the face-quality row R-4 minted, topology_bar, conformance p95, and the

wireframe judge read all stand independently (*"a number can be right and the render still

wrong… Both judges, or neither"* — charter :104-107). A wrap that passes R-7b and fails any of

those still refuses.

Keeping R-7a for wraps is not the "strict" option — it is the NO-BAR option, because the

adopted stage would run ungoverned while a dead bar points at it. The two-class restatement is

the strict option: it puts the same C4 floor every repair and rig rung answers to onto a stage

that previously had no floor it could even fail against.

Strongest objection, recorded

The C4 floor was minted for view-level silhouette deltas of position-only edits; applying it

per-view to a whole-topology replacement is a *reuse*, not a derivation, and a wrap could in

principle sit just under the floor on all views while re-sampling badly everywhere. Answer: that

failure mode is exactly what I3/R-4/topology_bar own (sampling and face quality are their rows,

not the lens's), and the floor's reuse is the same one-ruler discipline the rig row already

practices — one floor, one lens, every stage measured with it. A per-stage bespoke floor is the

gate-fitting direction.

THE RULING

**R-7 is restated as a two-class law. R-7a (position-preserving): identical to eight decimals,

unchanged. R-7b (topology-replacing): paired-baseline per-view delta under the C4 floor

0.0314159265, all three conventions, no averaging, baseline scored in-run; necessary never

sufficient — the topology instruments stand independently.** The stage-proving run's resolution

is hereby the law it improvised. Applies to runs adjudicated after this lands; the live

production-wrap lane's pre-registered terms are unchanged (they are this method already).

---

RULING 2 — THE FWHM BAR IS LOCAL AND THE FEATURE CLASS SPLITS BY SCALE (base-cage-vs-S7)

The question, as the record states it

topology_bar I3 requires ≥ 3 vertices across the clavicle-ridge FWHM (0.733 cm; OPEN-15,

charter :1219-1221). The wrap read 0.3179 against the subject's 1.0762 — *worse than the subject

on the exact number the S6 RULING turns on* — and the run's sampling ladder proved the bar

unreachable by global density at any hero budget: Catmull-Clark level 2 is already 214,048

quads and reads 1.3506; even 856,192 quads extrapolates to ~2.70 < 3

(S6_WRAP_STAGE_PROVING.md R-3, C_THE_SAMPLING_LADDER). The run's FINDING FOR THE DIRECTOR

poses the fork: either the ridge is a displacement/normal-layer feature and the bar belongs to

S7's displacement source, or the bar as written cannot be met by S6.

Alternatives, steelmanned

1. Keep ≥ 3 as a global base-cage bar. Honest consequence: a permanently RED row no hero mesh

can clear — 856k quads is not a hero base (the run's own finding). A bar that cannot be met is

not a bar; it is a stage ban wearing an instrument's clothes, and it contradicts the adopted

S6 stage the same way alternative 1 of Ruling 1 does.

2. Move ≥ 3 wholesale to S7's displacement source. Trivially met — at the R-11 texel bands

(512/1024/2048 px/m by class, CRAFT_TEXTURE_LOOKDEV_GROOM.md:274-278), 1024 px/m puts ~7.5

texels across 0.733 cm — but it silently decides that the clavicle ridge is NOT geometry, and

the S6 RULING's forcing evidence says the opposite: *"no displacement pass can carry

micro-anatomy on this topology"* (charter :1220), and the MUST-READ register requires the

clavicle *"full length with S-curve and both ends findable"* as a soft ridge under a 5.3 mm

mantle (CRAFT_ANATOMY_STANDARDS.md:325-327). A ridge that exists only in a normal map

vanishes at the silhouette and at grazing light — the exact Josh complaint ("no Adam's apple

or collar bone", ROUTE_A_RESIDUALS.md:26) returns.

3. Local refinement at named landmark sites (RECOMMENDED, APPLIED). The S6 RULING already

contains the answer in its own words: *"wrapped template topology with MetaHuman-class

edge-loop density AT deformation zones AND LANDMARK SITES"* (charter :1217-1218). MetaHuman

density is not global — it is loop PLACEMENT. The ladder measured the wrong operation:

global Catmull-Clark subdivision, which the run itself labels honestly (*"subdividing a

wrapped cage INTERPOLATES. It does not go back and look at the subject"*). A template with

loops routed along the MUST-READ ridge lines meets ≥ 3 across a 0.733 cm band for a few

hundred quads per site, not 856k globally — that is what an authored hero template IS. The

derivation of the number stands: ≥ 3 vertices across the FWHM is the minimum that SAMPLES a

bump rather than interpolating past it (two edges across the feature — the Nyquist floor for

representing one ridge in geometry), which is why the bar was set there and why it is kept.

THE RULING, in three parts

1. **The I3 bar is re-scoped LOCAL, not loosened: ≥ 3 vertices across the FWHM, measured ALONG

THE FULL RIDGE LINE at each MUST-READ landmark site** (clavicle full length with both ends,

acromion, scapular spine/medial border, suprasternale region, iliac crest + ASIS plane

change, patella, anterior tibial crest, malleoli, olecranon/ulnar styloid — the

CRAFT_ANATOMY_STANDARDS.md:325-335 register), to be met by TEMPLATE LOOP PLACEMENT and

local refinement, never by global subdivision. Sampling along the full line kills the gaming

path (three dense loops planted at the tape point while the ridge elsewhere stays coarse).

The re-wrap at a landmark-refined cage is the geometry claim — the run's own OWED item, now

with its acceptance defined.

2. The feature class splits by SCALE, mirroring the adjudication S7 already carries

(charter :331-340): **silhouette-scale form (≥ 1 mm relief, findable in an outline or at

grazing light — the ridge's plane change and S-curve line) is BASE-CAGE GEOMETRY, S6's row.

Sub-millimetre relief (the ridge's micro-modelling, vein outlines, knuckle/pore/cavity

layer) is S7 DISPLACEMENT-SOURCE content**, where the sampling requirement transfers to

texels: ≥ 3 texels across the feature's FWHM — met by the R-11 bands and measured by

texel_density.py per region, so the row is armable the day S7 exists.

3. OPEN-15 stands discharged into these two rows. Its forcing evidence ("no displacement

pass can carry micro-anatomy on this topology") remains true exactly at silhouette scale and

is the reason part 2 routes silhouette form to the cage; the 1.08-vertices-across finding was

the symptom of a cage with no landmark loops, which part 1 now names as the defect the next

template/re-wrap must clear.

Adversarial pass, both directions

No: I3 was always a landmark-site row — the global rows (quad fraction, loop presence at

elbow/knee/shoulder/eye/mouth, hero loop budgets 6-8/3-5) are separate instruments and stand.

Does the texel transfer smuggle geometry into texture? No: only the sub-millimetre layer

routes to S7, and S7's own pre-registered refusal condition (leg E relief + the S5 age read

scored BEFORE and AFTER, any move toward ADULT refused — charter :344-346) polices amplitude

there.

reads strict while guaranteeing the stage ships ungoverned or not at all. The care law names

this direction the costlier error.

Strongest objection, recorded

The ~few-hundred-quads-per-site claim is asserted from MetaHuman practice, not measured on this

template — a landmark-refined HM08 derivative could cost more. Answer: the ruling sets the BAR,

not the budget; if the refined template blows the hero budget, that is a refusal the re-wrap run

publishes with its numbers, and the fork returns to the director with data instead of

extrapolation. The bar's meetability is now falsifiable, which the global version never was.

---

WHAT THIS DOCUMENT CHANGES, EXACTLY

(implementation lands with the topology_bar site-arming owed row, which rides the wrap surface

a live lane holds — NOT edited by this seat).

when S7 exists).

surface and is not edited by this seat — the ruling is the record, the wiring is the owning

lane's.

Generated by harness/site/structure_site.py — the URL path is the repo path. review root