The threshold change is the first thing to move accuracy. Labelled protocol,
enrolled quick taps: 4 of 10, against 2 of 10 for every previous build. Seven
of fifteen presses now get two or more frames where none did before, and the
landing frames the old threshold discarded turn up in the transcript at 207,
213, 242 and 284. Wrong finger still 0 of 5.
It also explains the latency asymmetry Jorijn noticed. A match ends the loop
the moment it happens, mean 1317 ms. A no-match waits for the finger to lift,
mean 2190 ms, because a later frame in the same press may still match -- and
they do, at frames 3, 5 and 8. That is the press rule working, not a fault.
What the same run says about the template is worse than the loop ever was. One
press produced eight frames at full contact, 362 to 367, and every one
rejected; another produced six. Roughly one frame in seven matches, against the
47 to 75 percent the journal records for the template the research harness
enrolled. The first template here was ten quick taps in about one position, so
the algorithm was handed ten near-duplicate images of one spot.
fpenrol.sh enrols with a different contact position per ACCEPTED sample --
centre, left, right, tip, joint, rolled either way -- driven by
fprintd-enroll's own per-stage output rather than by counting presses. Enrol as
a SECOND finger so both templates coexist and the comparison holds the loop
constant; the trustlet reports which fid matched, and the daemon's map turns
that back into a name.
