cut-by-offset
Drawn at its defaults, in take an organ away, and watch.
It carries a slider over rise, so the claim in its caption strip is
restated at every stop rather than at one.
It takes no options at all, so every essay calling it gets this exact drawing.
Called by 6 essays
the blast radius of changing it
The organ that was taken away
Every observable this site has is read off an arrangement that was finished before the reading began, and the last phase showed what that costs. So remove one primordium from a settled stem and place the next one against what is left. The rule has to answer. The rival account cannot, because in it no organ's position was ever computed from its neighbours.
What a plant might be doingThe ratio was never about the rule
One phase ago the comb was retracted as evidence that a plant computes its pattern, and one quantity was exempted from the retraction: the ratio of the two combs, which a placement rule and a transported disturbance divide differently. Drive seven disturbances through the same rule and the ratio spans 0.45 to 1.09. The exemption does not hold, and the angle sequence has nothing left.
The claims, measuredThe experiment this site can specify
For eight phases the outstanding item has been a survey — photographs, a protractor, hundreds of specimens — and it has not been done. The intervention is a different kind of ask, and a cheaper one: a needle, one apex, and a yes-or-no per ablation. Here is what it would cost, what it would settle, and the four ways it could come out.
The claims, measuredThe survey loses its second outcome
The specification written one phase ago names three results the survey could return, and the second — a ratio near or above 1.30, read as evidence against the placement rule — is the one that would have been worth publishing. It does not survive this phase. The ratio moves with where the plant sits between two transitions, and it moves again with the colour of the plant's own disturbance.
Where the angle comes fromA rule that cannot heal a hole
The placement rule corrects itself against a displacement — that is what the lag-one correlation of −0.6 has been saying for three phases. It does not correct itself against a deletion. Which organ is removed decides whether the stem is back on its lattice in twenty-four organs or never, and the boundary between the two is sharp, reproducible and in the middle of the front.
Where the angle comes fromThe pattern the cut leaves behind
A stem that never recovers from a removal is not disordered. Its divergences settle into a cycle of eight angles and repeat it exactly for the rest of the run, and a counter reading the positions calls the result 8/16 — a two-jugate lattice. The rule has a second attractor at the same growth parameter, and an ablation is how you get to it.