ALLWAYS064 — CRITIC A / V03
Verdict: QUALIFIED VISUAL PASS for the archival curves/different-causes essay. V01's blocking diver source-association error is repaired in checked V03 samples. Native-speed rhythm/audio and full original-observation performance acceptance remain INCONCLUSIVE/unperformed. V01 report remains valid as the record of that earlier failure; V02 was not reviewed or accepted.

Inspection: All four actual V03 temporal sheets over complete60seconds. Extracted actual32–38.6 replay/hold at3fps. Read currentFITS.json, independently recomputed diver quadratic residual, and checked each corrected sample against the original exact-time uniformly fitted source frame extracted during V01 audit. New per-frame point sheet criticA_V03_diver_sample_check.jpg. No build-script reading or native-speed/audio audition.

Source-association repair:
Eight corrected points at1.2,1.5,1.8,2.1,2.4,2.7,3.0,3.3 now lie on approximate torso regions of their own source images. Most importantly, the1.8s point moved from empty space left of the body to its torso, and3.0s moved from empty space right of the body to its torso. The other revised points also track the intended body area plausibly. “Approximate torso landmark” is more accurate than V01's body-center claim because pose/blur makes a stable mass center unavailable.
This is actual reattachment of observations, not merely increasing the uncertainty to conceal V01's large misses. About24px uncertainty is reasonable as a coarse manual/blur approximation, not independently estimated statistical confidence.
Independently recomputed2D RMS21.57717323381135px matches currentFITS.json. This arithmetic verifies the current point set's fit. Since RMS is below stated24px approximation uncertainty, it does NOT establish a statistically or metrologically significant model failure. Camera following and changing pose still independently invalidate a world-space ballistic inference from these screen coordinates.

Actual temporal repair32–38:
V03 replays the source segment from approximately1.2–3.3s while markers accumulate, then holds the last frame through38. Source-time/advancing-samples/held-frame labels make the distinction readable. The viewer now sees points arise across time instead of mistaking a cluster on one freeze for points all lying on that body at once. This is a useful cinematic improvement as well as a data repair. The hold is a composite screen trace, explicitly not a measured world trajectory.
I verified sample association on individual raw source frames rather than demanding all accumulated markers coincide with the body in the final freeze. Those are different tests.

Unchanged core remains sound within scope:
2–10 supported stage fabric,10–16 diver takeoff/rotation/water entry,16–24 metal chip formation precede annotations.
26–32 two close static-fabric model guides illustrate that a low2D residual cannot identify physical construction. Their residual difference is beneath declared outline uncertainty; no physical-law selection is supported.
38–44 steel outline doubles back while a single-valued quadratic cannot follow it. This remains the clearest robust model-class mismatch; unlike diver's uncertainty-limited residual, it teaches an obvious structural limitation. It does not identify a helix or force law.
44–56 guide-free return restores supported stage fabric and moving performers. This gains a modest interest through separating fixed/decorative support from moving bodies, rather than claiming the dancers generate the swag or that it is literally a released chain.

Remaining optional wording issue:
Diver footer says the amber time fit “misses.” This can truthfully describe visible noncoincidence, but it should not be summarized as a rejected physical model or significant mismatch given the24px approximation. A more cautious optional label is “approximate screen fit / not a world-space trajectory.” This is not a new blocking point-integrity defect. Let steel carry the strong failure claim and the diver carry the lesson about projection/camera/measurement limits.

Largest remaining limitation:
The opening's geometric family is partly a discovery supplied by the title and later comparison; an actual moving diver under a following camera does not present a simple stable screen arc before annotation. That is now addressed honestly as a measurement-context question rather than forced into a preconceived parabola. It narrows the achievement, but does not defeat this comparative essay.
A native-speed reader may still find six-second explanation holds too dense or too long; static tool inspection cannot settle that. Source sound/contact meaning remains unauditioned.

Falsifiable verification if extending the claim:
For a claim that the screen quadratic is demonstrably inadequate beyond sampling uncertainty, obtain repeated/manual-independent landmark estimates or a registered/stabilized track with explicit camera model, then compare residuals against that uncertainty. Do not call21.58px larger than24px or preserve an exaggerated failure for rhetoric. For the current modest archive essay, no further geometry correction is mandatory after this source-association repair.

Strengths to preserve:
Corrected source-time torso landmarks.
Temporal sample accumulation before the composite hold.
Static outline, screen trace and projected material contour remain separate evidence types.
Tool-driven curl formation provides visible causal difference.
Steel demonstrates useful model-class failure without physical-law overclaim.
Guide-free source return and archive-adaptation framing.

Acceptance boundary: CORRECTED SAMPLE-TO-SOURCE ASSOCIATION VISUALLY PASSES CHECKED POINTS; FIT ARITHMETIC VERIFIED; DIVER RESIDUAL NOT SIGNIFICANT BEYOND DECLARED APPROXIMATION; NARROW ARCHIVAL VISUAL ESSAY PASS. FULL ORIGINAL CHAIN/TOSS/HAND-STRIP PERFORMANCE NOT PERFORMED. NATIVE-SPEED/SOUND/WHOLE-FILM AV ACCEPTANCE INCONCLUSIVE. No comparable reference viewing supports a “reference stronger” verdict.