menzelandClaude Opus 5
f0f8f620de
CI for csaxs_bec / test (push) Successful in 1m45s
The first clean run said both scans were fine, which conflicts with scan 473 being classified as having the artefact. Two gaps explain how that verdict could be wrong. **The file was never checked against the intended scan.** Measured fast-axis travel implies roughly 6.2 um per point in S00473 and 9.2 um in S00254, while the scans were run at 0.65 um and 1.00 um -- both about 9.3x larger. Until that is resolved the analysis rests on an unverified assumption about which axis is which and in what units. The check now prints the fast and slow axis ranges, the per-line slow step, and the implied step size, so the file can be compared directly against the scan command. A mismatch means the wrong axis, the wrong units, or motion that was not commanded, and all three matter more than anything downstream. **Whole-line spans cannot see a partial stall.** An axis that freezes part-way through a line and then continues still covers its full range, so the span test passes. Since the report describes intermittent motion loss rather than whole lines going missing, that is the more likely shape of the fault. Lines are now also scanned for runs of consecutive position samples that did not advance, reported with the same start/middle/end distribution. Verified against a file whose stalls leave every span intact: the span test sees nothing, the new one finds all eight and places them in the final tenth. Note the sampling limit still applies -- 74 position samples against 428 data points in S00473, and about 8 against 205 in S00254. A stall shorter than the sampling interval remains invisible, so a clean result here is not proof. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>