Two bugs in the acceptance test, both found by running it for real.
1. THE GATE DID NOT APPLY TO TEXTURED RUNS. The texture path returned before the
check, so the one path most likely to be used for real assets was the only one that
could ship a blob silently. The check is now a shared gate() called from both.
2. THE METRIC WAS TESSELLATION-DEPENDENT. It projected the VERTEX LIST, so a decimated
mesh sampled its own silhouette more sparsely and scored lower for an identical
shape - holes appear inside the outline and count as misses. Measured on two real
assets:
asset verts vertex-proj surface-sampled
1_img (gate FAILED) 133,842 0.790 0.911
0_img (gate passed) 227,546 0.965 0.969
The dense mesh barely moves; the sparse one jumps 0.12. That is the metric
measuring tessellation, not accuracy - and at min_iou 0.85 it had just rejected a
good reconstruction. Overlay confirmed it: the "missing" region was speckle inside
the silhouette, not a wrong shape.
Now samples 3M points uniformly over the surface, so density is a constant of the
metric rather than a property of the mesh.
Worth stating plainly: the gate caught a real problem on its first live failure - just
not the one it reported. A quality gate that is itself unvalidated is a liability, and
this one needed the same "measure it, do not reason about it" treatment as the model.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5f14517553