The comment justified the rule by informative missingness alone - a pixel over the
detector's range goes missing BECAUSE the reflection was bright - and explicitly excused a
gap, a mask and the sensor edge as unbiased. The code cuts on all of them, so the comment
described a narrower rule than the one implemented.
The code is right and the reason was incomplete. Renormalising over the surviving pixels is
unbiased only while the profile MODEL is exact; lose the peak and the amplitude is set by
the wings alone, so the result stops being a measurement of the reflection and becomes a
measurement of how well the fitted shape describes it. That holds whatever made the pixel
unreadable. The overload remains what motivated the rule and what biases hardest, since the
loss then concentrates on the strong low-resolution reflections that are the largest terms
of R_meas.
Comment only; no logic changes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
bce8ff8a1f