proteinScore and iceScore are saturating scores in [0,1] that answer presence, not quality: a superb
crystal and a barely-diffracting one both read near 1, and neither the spot count nor the resolution
enters either of them as a term. iceRingScore already reports a magnitude - a ratio, unbounded - which
is not a number that can be thresholded; these are.
The protein score counts distinct d SHELLS above 5 A rather than spots, so a parasitic ring in the
low-resolution band cannot accumulate evidence, and weights each spot against the frame's own median
so a scattering of the weakest detections cannot fill a shell either. The ice score carries two
channels and takes the stronger: a radial one over the azimuthal profile, which runs the hexagonal
and the CUBIC phase as separate hypotheses and decides between them at the end (flash-cooled loops
show cubic or stacking-disordered ice at least as often as hexagonal, the two share only three
lines, and dropping the cubic hypothesis costs about 5 pp on iced loops), and a spot one that reads
an excess on the ice radii against the same band slid to every ice-free offset, which is what
catches ice arriving as discrete crystallites and leaving the radial profile flat.
Both read d out of the geometry, so both move with a beam-centre error; the centre is not fitted
here, and the one they were computed with is written beside them as scoreBeamCenterX/Y so a later
rescoring can tell an algorithm disagreement from a geometry one.
Ported from validated prototypes and checked against them frame by frame on stored data: mean
absolute difference 2.7e-5 (protein), 1.3e-8 (ice radial) and 3.4e-4 (ice spots). On a 41-loop
battery the protein score reaches 98.4% of confirmed-protein frames and 0.00% of water frames, and
finds no cluster on any water or ice raster. Cost is 0.01 ms/frame for the protein score and
0.08-0.32 ms/frame for the ice score.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EFEJG6WBQv8th4UJFNe53N
