Code-quality review on commit 13abf96 flagged 3 Important issues in
the baseline document plus 2 minor roadmap consistency gaps. Applied
all of them:
1. The "CPU scales superlinearly with N₁" claim was imprecise because
CPU growth (4.0×) is actually sublinear vs near-LB count (7.7×).
Clarified: CPU grows more than linearly with radius N₁ but
sublinearly with visible-LB count; frustum cull discards most far
LBs early. The outer per-LB walk still scales with N₁, which is
what Tier 2's persistent groups address.
2. The "40-50% memory footprint reduction from atlas packing" estimate
was asserted without derivation and likely too optimistic given all
surfaces are already power-of-two and same-format (RGBA8). Replaced
with a more honest bound: "low-MB to ~10 MB absolute saving" with
explicit per-array metadata overhead reasoning. Conclusion is
unchanged — atlas adoption still isn't justified given GPU
under-utilization.
3. The "spec §6 threshold for atlas is >30%" citation pointed at text
that doesn't exist in the spec. Replaced with "A conventional
rule-of-thumb" so a future reader doesn't chase a phantom citation.
Plus roadmap consistency:
M1: The N.6 slice 1 bullet now uses the canonical "✓ SHIPPED — Title.
Shipped YYYY-MM-DD." prefix that every other shipped phase uses.
M2: Added N.6.1 row to the shipped table at the top of the roadmap
(lines ~55-66) so the at-a-glance shipped list is complete.
None of these change the conclusion or the next-phase recommendation
(C.1.5 first, then reduced N.6 slice 2). The fixes improve doc accuracy
and future-readability.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
76ca3ffca8