# Batch08 — retained-frame review

September 15, 2026

**Status: static review only. Moving playback is unassessed. No approval is granted.**

## Scope

The selected source movies were inspected before the outputs. The reviewer is source-familiar, not a source-naive viewer. The chronology review examined every retained frame index in the selected files using ordered 320×180 thumbnails, with four selected native-raster rechecks.

Coverage comprises **1,044 source frame instances plus 2,088 additional output frame instances: 3,132 frame instances within the selected files**. These are not corpus-unique coverage counts. Hash-identical source copies receive explicitly reused coverage, not additional viewing credit. The chronology used 31 source sheets and 62 output sheets; native rechecks add no frame instances. Earlier sparse reviews retain their original coverage limits.

Complete retained-frame indexing does **not** mean native-pixel-complete inspection, full-master review, moving perception or audio assessment. Small text, compression and pixel-level differences can remain unresolved. No new visual assessment was performed for this reconciliation.

## Four primary gaps

These source-relative gaps are observed in both output versions. They do not establish an ordering between those versions or an overall-film winner.

### 1. Permission menu: dismissal-phase text overlap

At the inspected dismissal-phase frame at 3.750 seconds, the underlying member name and email cross the popup interior and its option text. Selected native-raster checks confirm this overlap. The source popup remains opaque while its shrinking boundary exposes underlying text outside its edges.

The gap is **dismissal-phase compositing**, not persistent obstruction throughout the held-open menu. Confidence is high that the overlap exists in the checked stills, but its real-time salience and usability impact remain unassessed.

### 2. Workspace conversation: weakened text hierarchy

The opening conversation uses similarly heavy black text for author names, body copy and the outcome/link line. The source distinguishes author and body text, gray timestamps and a colored action link. The full retained sequence does not reveal a hierarchy-restoring state before the headline replaces the conversation.

The later three-row icon/text group is present and fits within the frame; no missing-row or clipping finding is established. Confidence is high in the visible opening hierarchy difference, with moderate confidence in its aesthetic importance.

### 3. Voice outro: schematic work artifacts

Documents, lists and charts are represented largely by short bars and basic symbols rather than the source's more specific work artifacts. Additional color phases and intermediate object sizes and positions do not close this detail gap.

Confidence is high in the broad schematic-versus-specific distinction and moderate in its aesthetic importance. Motion quality and real-time readability remain unassessed.

### 4. Character cards: limited rendering variety

The robot and bird sequences retain essentially the same flat drawing family while colors and background patterns change. The source varies rendering treatment more substantially across its recurring character. The complete retained chronology adds source treatments that reinforce this distinction; it does not reveal comparable rendering-family variety in the outputs.

Confidence is high in the drawing-family difference and moderate in its aesthetic priority. Palette or subject substitutions alone are not treated as failures, and no moving-continuity judgment is made.

## Skill disclosure: no established material structural discriminator

**NO material structural discriminator is established for skill disclosure.** The inspected source and outputs preserve the consequential progression: thinking/planning, disclosed skill/helper use, incremental response, download link, a partially composer-occluded artifact card, and later positions revealing a Draft/loading card with a gray Install control.

No successful-installation state was perceived in these retained sequences. That shared endpoint does not justify inventing a missing-success requirement. No material structural gap is demonstrated within the inspected scope, but this is not proof of pixel equivalence, absence of every defect or approval. The comparative rank remains **unassessed**; a changes-required status is not justified by a manufactured structural gap.

## Limits and disposition

The existing sampled-static rank limits remain in force. The chronology adds coverage and qualifications without rewriting those ranks. Static positions cannot establish smoothness, pacing, easing, synchronization, temporal comfort or moving-view superiority.

**Moving: unassessed. Audio: unassessed. Native-pixel-complete coverage: not claimed. Full-master coverage: not claimed. Approval: none.**

## Packaging boundary

Five original editable kits accompany ten verified content renders. Frozen builder-stage notes precede the later exports and are explicitly dated in each guide and START-HERE. Four examples have a source-relative gap; skill disclosure instead remains moving-review outstanding without an established material structural gap. Neither status earns approval. Actual final downloadable-kit execution, delivery, native Resolve and moving-source review remain separate gates.