Can a change inferred from one image work on another? →
Infer a relation from a visual demonstration, reuse it on different content, then compose another relation with the saved VSA result.
Findings and limitations
Qualification correction: accurate relation estimates and the recorded numerical pass did not establish correct rotation in the decoded scene. Structures can be missing, fragmented or incorrectly oriented, not merely blurred. Rendered rotation remains unqualified. The original verdict, measurements and downloadable records are retained as historical evidence.
Fifteen of sixteen demonstrated changes were accepted. Median geometric displacement error, including the refusal, was 0.93% of the image short side. The particular rotation, scale and displacement were inferred from image pairs; the possible geometric family was supplied.
A second operation used only the saved first-stage VSA and a second inferred relation. After two operations, RGB mean squared error was 0.018995 (pixel values scaled from 0 to 1; lower is better) versus 0.057015 for no geometric change through the same number of passes, and 0.048183 when the first change was skipped. Those are reductions of 66.7% and 60.6%; all 32 queries improved against the unchanged comparison.
All five predefined numerical criteria passed, and independent checks reproduced all 416 image comparisons. The first-step comparison against wrong demonstrations remains statistically uncertain.
Supplying the true geometry still produced mean RGB error of 0.011179, compared with 0.000570 for directly encoding and decoding the desired photograph. A subsequent component diagnostic found local rotation failure even with original encoder features and exact geometry. Recovery from source VSA is therefore not required for the failure; this does not isolate every contribution from feature transformation, composition and decoding.
Rotation, uniform scaling and translation are a supplied family, and the two-step procedure is supplied. The system fits numeric relations without neural retraining or acquiring a new operation family. Refused fits use explicit identity fallbacks; the refused example remains in all totals. Desired query images and known geometry are observer-only references in this experiment.
The five historical numerical criteria passed and the first-stage wrong-demonstration confidence interval includes zero. Neither fact establishes intact geometry in the rendered result. Relation fitting and continuation through saved VSA remain separate evidence; the application path is not a qualified visual rotation mechanism. No semantic editing, invented detail, general imagination or runtime promotion is established. The continuing life is unchanged.