ETHAN+LABFollow along Production / Physical validation pending
The failed enlargement, the preservation correction, and the remaining physical gates.
RECORD THROUGH SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
The first pilot attempted to reconstruct parts of a composition. Ethan identified lost detail and changes to its character. The later preservation experiment kept the whole original together. That received visual approval, but a physical sample approval has not been recorded.
An enlargement that reconstructed the art was rejected. The process changed to whole-original enlargement, with composition fidelity reviewed separately from pixel dimensions and physical print approval.
The baseline is the approved artwork. Examine text, subject geometry, fine lines, texture, and negative space. A more polished reconstruction fails if it changes what was selected.
Whole-image enlargement increases the number of pixels available for placement. It estimates detail; it cannot recover an unseen high-resolution original. Pixel density must be interpreted with the intended physical dimensions.
The visible canvas front and the material around the stretcher bars are separate regions. Critical subjects and text must remain on the front. Provider placement must be checked at each size before sample approval.
The preservation pilot processed a 1024 × 1536 image into 4096 × 6144. At a 24 × 36-inch front, that is about 171 processed pixels per inch versus about 43 native pixels per inch. Neither number proves physical quality.
A larger comparison canvas can help inspect physical-scale details. Labeling that canvas at a higher PPI does not establish that the underlying art acquired native detail at that density.
The largest-size provider template and its labels did not agree in the reviewed record. The discrepancy remains unresolved; an assumed substitute layout is not an approved production file.
Reconstruction changed the composition and character of the selected artwork.
Whole-original enlargement received visual approval. Front-face placement, wrap validation, and physical sample approval remain separate gates.
The decision: Ethan rejected the mismatch and required faithful preservation of the original.
Ethan identified the fidelity loss and later flagged edge spacing in the largest-size placement preview.
GPT-6 investigated enlargement, prepared whole-original processing and comparison views, and documented canvas placement issues.
The project records the rejected reconstruction and the subsequent visual approval of the preserved-original experiment.
Pilot dimensions and placement reviews exist. The largest canvas template discrepancy is recorded as unresolved.
No approved physical sample or verified paid fulfillment test is recorded. Catalog images and mockup details are not print proofs.
Based on retained project records and selected public artifacts. Historical checks describe the recorded release; they are not continuous monitoring or an independent audit.
Selected public artifacts are linked here. Raw review notes, production settings, account data, and private working files are excluded.