The report invited the reader to check REFINED_DETECTOR_TILT against a powder
calibration. Measured over two detectors' worth of crystals, that check
misleads: the rotation fit does one outer round, so it leaves its starting
value by only a small and crystal-dependent fraction of the distance to the
calibrated value, and on the worse of the two detectors the per-crystal median
sits an order of magnitude further from the powder answer than either method's
uncertainty. A user comparing one run against their own calibration would
conclude the calibration was wrong.
What survives the aliasing is the direct beam, which is already printed beside
it, and the MEDIAN of the tilt over several crystals on one detector - enough
to show up a placeholder or a stale value in the file, not enough to replace a
calibration. Say that, and say not to feed one run's value back into the
instrument.
The conditioning law (VIF = 4.40 tan(2theta_95)^-1.66) was tested as a per-run
gate and does NOT order the errors - the crystals whose fit stays put are found
in the best-conditioned band as often as the worst - so no threshold is added
here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EFEJG6WBQv8th4UJFNe53N
leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
51e90f5549