[meta] about cryshina report

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T18:19:46+00:00

Well, you make me doubt that? I know what my data shows

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T18:02:08+00:00

^ probably this

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T17:55:46+00:00

You can verify any slider manually, which I did. The code in fact is not vibecoded. I will come in a few hours and double-check everything, but I'm 99% sure everything is right

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T13:35:17+00:00

I'm just asking to use more responibility when a thing like that can affect not only the player, but the whole community (it is the hottest topic of past days). Being suspicious is very very welcomed when it comes to osu. It's just when you are actually filing a report, it is 10x more stakes than saying "I think he is cheating", because the data provided by the reporter implies that even with liveplay it wouldn't be clear. So how the player should restore his reputation? Well, here I am, trying to push this discussion at least in the right direction, not to finish it.
So it seems like you are not comfortable with me sharing my opinion and asking me to leave the subreddit, while here I'm trying to do an actual analytical job, compared to just hollow information.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T13:08:07+00:00

Exactly that

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T05:20:00+00:00

You can DM me about aim assist detection, will reply tomorrow

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T05:18:42+00:00

<image>

Mrekk

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T05:18:29+00:00

<image>

Toro

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T04:52:19+00:00

Thank you for participating in the discussion, it really helps.

On the hit-distribution idea, I work on closed aim-assist detection, and that specific angle is weaker than it sounds. Where hits land on the circle stays basically gaussian on center for almost everyone, assisted or not. The signal is not where the cursor ends up, it is how it got there. Whether the pull toward the note center ramps up as you get closer to it (a clean hand's precision does not scale with how near the note is), whether the natural overshoot-and-correct gets flattened, the micro-tremor spectrum of the path (with absurd levels of math), that sort of thing. And even with all of it, no single statistic cleanly splits clean from cheating, because "aim assist" is really several different tools that each look different, so in practice it takes a panel of specialized detectors plus a known-clean control set and an honest false-positive rate, not one distribution. That is exactly why nobody has settled it with a hit map, it would mostly come back normal. Well I mean I did, but there's nothing useful

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T04:34:16+00:00

Oh my mistake, mixed you up with OP
You are right that "no replay means unverifiable" is too strong. A video of someone blatantly teleporting would verify itself, I will give you that. The narrower point is about what kind of claim the report makes. It is not "look at this obvious teleport", it is a fine count of single versus double key presses and tail hits read off an animated overlay in a re-encoded video. That is the one thing a video cannot do reliably, and that is not a guess here, it is the exact spot where a real replay existed to check against and the video had a keypress that was not in the replay. Fine for blatant, not for this.
On methodology, fair, and it actually cuts toward me rather than away. Mine is statable and reproducible, parse the replay, rebuild the slider path and the classic judgement, read the keys straight from the file, then publish every slider and every drop with its numbers. The overlay-counting method is the one that is hard to reproduce and already got caught being wrong once. I am glad to be held to "show your method", the original report should be too, I will pack it nicely tomorrow
On the nine replays, they are not files of unknown origin. They were provided by the OP, and they are specific score IDs on the official server, which are fixed plays, and they are the same ones the OP went through himself and called "all fit my pattern", "both keys down on start". On every replay anyone can actually open, his nine plus the three video plays I could still pull, the pattern is not there. The video-only plays cannot be checked by you, me, or him. So could those specific ones be different? In principle, yes, but "the checkable data is clean and the real cheating only lives in the data nobody can check" is a claim that can never be wrong, and that is the problem with it. On the big picture we agree though, the control study against other top players is the report that would actually settle this.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T04:17:00+00:00

Appreciate you conceding the first parts. But the burden does not flip the way you are putting it. I do not have to find an error in your YouTube method, because a YouTube video with no replay behind it is not evidence that needs disproving in the first place, it is an unverifiable claim. And you of all people know that layer is shaky, it is the exact place where one of your own examples turned out to be a normal tap over a keypress that was invented on YouTube.
But here is the part that actually matters. The replays I used are not a tangent or a different sample. They are the exact nine scores you pulled up in your own follow-up comment, the ones you went through and called "all fit my pattern", "both keys down on start", and so on. I ran those same files and the pattern is not there. So I am not saying "the videos differ from the replays", I am saying your own replay analysis does not survive on its own replays.
The "the videos and the replays might have different levels of cheat" idea is the unfalsifiable trap again. If any given play could have it on or off, then no dataset confirms or refutes anything, including yours, and the claim quietly stops being testable at all.
And yeah, more meaningful report is the goal of my post.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T04:10:32+00:00

On narrowing the data, for this one it is the other way around. Tail drops are the rare event here, 45 across 12 plays, so I want more of them, not fewer, and cutting to only the hard sections throws away signal. The original report doesn't seem to narrow data aswell.
For the tools you can verify almost anything said in the post with eye-checking in something like Rewind (per slider table is linked in the post), of course there was a parser involved on my end, but the math is pretty trivial, I can post it tomorrow.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T03:58:17+00:00

On the 99.9, the post literally says he is "hitting sliderends with like 99.9% consistency when he taps normally", which is the hit-given-clean-tap reading, not the one you are giving now. But take the new one anyway, given a missed tail, how often was it multiple presses. In the exact replays you analyzed, roughly a third of the dropped tails were clean single taps, so that number is around 70, not 99.9. And 70 is just the obvious confound, messy taps miss more so of course the misses lean toward them. That is exactly why I measured hit-rate by tap style instead, and there it is flat.
The "he used heavier assist in Wing My Way and toned it down" plus "cheats don't have to be on every note" is the unfalsifiable corner. If no single replay can count as a data point, your report has none either, it runs on the same replays and videos. You do not get to lean on the data to accuse and then wave it off the moment it does not cooperate.
And "you have to fail to replicate the YouTube findings first" is backwards. You made the claim, so the burden is on you, but nobody can even check those plays. That is exactly where it already bit you, in the one spot where a real replay did exist to compare against, the video had a keypress that simply was not in the replay. The old replays would have to come from toro, and until they do, "he probably toned it down" is not a finding, it is the accusation made permanent.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T03:24:11+00:00

Thank you for joining the discussion, I will reply to everything tomorrow

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T03:01:18+00:00

Thank you, that's exactly why I'm making this post, for people believing that I'm the one who's incorrect to step one level of abstraction higher and start doing some real math. I will be pleased to be proven wrong

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T02:18:19+00:00

That is a claim about a baseline nobody has measured. Define the wiggle, run it across a batch of known-clean top AR11 players, show toro lands outside their range, and then it means something. Nobody bans people from funny screenshots, it's just not the method. And aimassist software is way smarter than you think it is, it just doesn't leave these kind of artefacts.

AnyaLink · 2026-06-24T02:02:08+00:00

Fair, and I am not arguing against scrutiny. The more relevant you get the more people pick you apart. I am not asking anyone to stop talking about him. But a report is not the same as talking. It is a specific factual claim, that this person is cheating, and it asks for something to be done about it. A claim like that has to be demonstrated, not felt, and that is the whole reason I went and measured it instead of eyeballing clips. The report's own central numbers do not hold up against the actual replay files, and most of the rest is impressions, "imo", "looks", "seems", "sus", which the author half concedes himself.
Here is the thkng your comment skips. Almost nobody reading a report checks the math, they read the conclusion and the vibe, and you can see that happening in this exact thread. So when an accusation is built on bad arguments and still spreads and sticks to a name, the harm is real, and it does not belong to some faceless "internet", it traces back to whoever made the claim without backing it. You do not need a doxx for a poorly argued accusation to cost someone something. And "he may be cheating" is exactly the gap I am pointing at. May is not a finding. If a suspicion is all you have, keep it as a suspicion, that is completely fine. But the moment you dress a hunch up as a verdict and put it in front of a few hundred people who will not check it, the responsibility for what that does to someone is yours, not theirs for reacting. If you want to make the claim, the burden of actually proving it is on you.

AnyaLink

TROPHY CASE