# Permission-scope excerpt review

September 15, 2026. This report carries forward frozen source criteria and anonymous still-frame observations. It adds no media viewing, probing, or decoding.

## Workshop-sharing content

**Biggest remaining supported gap: none established in the inspected states.** This is a bounded finding, not proof of perfection or a motion-quality endorsement.

The sampled entrance at frames 36–54 separates the contextual app from the foreground sharing surface while revealing its contents; frame 45 was also inspected as an individual 1920×1080 raster. Scope focus is established at frame 120, the menu is present at 159, and the updated scope label is visible at 215. The sampled checkmark transition is bounded by (216, 218]. The menu is absent at 230, the updated state remains through 248, and the sparse reset starts at 249. These states support the source's reveal, focus, selection, and result relationships without requiring identical artwork or wording.

The largest remaining assessment limit is the lack of perceived moving playback, particularly across the focus sequence around frames 92–120 (1.533–2.000 seconds) and the menu interval [159, 230) (2.650–3.833 seconds). That is missing perceptual evidence, not a newly assigned defect. Ease, moving legibility, and the materiality of short transitions remain unmeasured.

Coverage for this content is exactly 114 distinct thumbnail frames at 320×180, one-sixth of each native 1920×1080 axis, plus four individually displayed native-size rasters: frames 45, 120, 215, and 218. Those four frames are already included in the thumbnail set; they are not additional unique frames. The 114-frame set is the source thumbnail set documented in PUBLIC_SOURCE_OBSERVATIONS.md, plus frames 58, 59, and 219.

## Planting-sharing content

**Biggest remaining supported gap: none established in the inspected states.** This conclusion is separate from the workshop finding and carries the same evidentiary limits.

The sampled foreground reveal at frames 36–54, including the individually displayed frame 45, preserves the distinction between the app context and the sharing controls. Scope focus at 120 precedes the menu at 159. The label update at 215, checkmark transition bounded by (216, 218], menu dismissal at 230, result through 248, and reset at 249 preserve the inspected causal sequence. Changing the resource theme and copy does not itself violate the functional criteria.

The largest remaining assessment limit is again perceived motion: the focus around frames 92–120 and menu interval [159, 230) were sampled as static states, not watched in continuous playback. No supported defect is invented to fill that uncertainty, and no real-time readability or motion-quality conclusion follows.

Coverage is exactly 114 distinct 320×180 thumbnail frames at one-sixth native-axis scale, plus four individually displayed 1920×1080 rasters at frames 45, 120, 215, and 218. The thumbnail set is the same 114-frame set described for the workshop content; the individual stills are members of that set.

## Evidence boundaries

- The source criteria concern proposition-to-demo order, foreground separation, focus before interaction, group scope versus member roles, menu anchoring, hover before confirmation, settled label/check agreement, a visible result beat, and a partial exit. They do not mandate copied identity, branding, artwork, people, wording, or exact timing tolerances.
- Earlier clock checks independently verified all six reviewed files as 270 frames and 270 video packets at 60/1 fps, with a 1/15360 time base, frame presentation timestamps of 256 × frame index, and an exclusive end of 69120 ticks: 4.5 seconds. Their movie-header clocks agreed. All had no audio stream; this is a metadata finding, not an audio audition. Frame counts and decoder checks are not visual coverage.
- The earlier six-file inspection used 114 distinct 320×180 thumbnails for each of four 1920×1080 files, and 33 for each of two 960×540 files. Across those files, 36 distinct contact sheets were displayed in 37 display calls, with 28 individual still displays. Four files had four individual stills each; two had six each. Repeated sheet display, saved but unopened images, and duplicate visual content do not increase coverage.
- The original source-only study remains exactly 111 distinct 320×180 thumbnails at one-third native-axis scale and 23 individually displayed 960×540 rasters. Subsequent inspection of source-identical material does not enlarge that earlier source-only record.
- Source-identical material was recognizable through a known byte hash before the anonymous assessment. That identity recognition was disclosed; it supplies no quality credit and limits claims of complete blinding. No identity mapping is needed for these public findings.
- This reconciliation adds zero image inspections, zero media probes, zero frame decodes, and zero moving-playback observations. Preservation hashes read bytes only.
- Static chronology and native-size raster files are not perceived moving footage, calibrated one-to-one display, native-editor or Resolve verification, or whole-film evaluation. There is no forced winner, ranking, improvement claim, or moving-quality win.

The source observations and original sampling limits are preserved separately in PUBLIC_SOURCE_OBSERVATIONS.md. These two documents are prepared for public sharing; no publication or deployment is part of this review.