The efficiency correction was added to the rotation predictor on both the CPU and
the GPU, and to the stills predictor on the CPU, but not to the stills predictor on
the GPU - which the factory selects for stills whenever a card is present. So the
correction was applied on a machine without a GPU and silently skipped on every
machine with one: 6.6% apart on the geometry the tests use, 23.9% at 18 keV through
a 450 micron sensor.
The parity test that should have caught this is the reason it was not caught: it
compares the predicted position and resolution of every reflection and nothing else,
so a factor carried alongside them is invisible to it. It now compares the
prescaling factor as well, with an assertion that the factor is not uniformly one so
the comparison cannot pass vacuously, and the rotation path - which had no parity
test at all - gets the same one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01EFEJG6WBQv8th4UJFNe53N
leonarski_fandClaude Opus 5
db4af06a2b
