S43M-694Y-L5Y3
Walking Wake EX [127] [promo (★ black star – promo)] [scarlet &
violet]
Published: May 19, 2026
click to flip
| category | Φ | weight | Percentile Rank | distribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3.18 | 100% | 7.6% |
|
| surfaces | 2.69 | 30% | 8.7% |
|
| edges | 2.49 | 25% | 7.8% |
|
| corners | 0.68 | 25% | 0.6% |
|
| alignment | 7.89 | 20% | 90.5% |
|
Executive Summary | Φ scores are derived from multi-angle photometric imaging; higher scores indicate a surface closer to mint condition. All statistical tests are performed against reference cards in the most immaculate condition (i.e., GEM MT, Pristine, Black Label; n=100+). Overall: composite Φ score of surfaces (30%), edges (25%), corners (25%), and alignment (20%). Percentile rank: the card’s score expressed as a percentage of the simulated market population (n = 10,000). Distribution: histogram of the simulated reference population with the card’s score marked in red.
Figure 1 | The Lambert algorithm detects
dents, creases, delamination, and other surface irregularities. All
reflectance data are measured using proprietary imaging technology.
a) Raw reflectance signal across the full
card surface. Grid columns (A–F) and rows (1–6) denote spatial zones in
millimetre coordinates; grayscale encodes reflectance magnitude
(low–high).
b) Reflectance signal
adjusted relative to a signal baseline obtained from gem mints (n ≥
100).
c-d) Reflective signal as a
function of severity, assessed by significance (c) and intensity (d).
Evaluated card (red, solid); mean gem mint reference set (black, solid);
mean heavily played/damaged reference data (black, dotted). y-axis:
count (#) or survival. x-axis: magnitude of irregularity. Wasserstein
distance (w) and associated signifiance (p.value) to each reference set
was calculated using a leave-one-out permutation.
e) Percentage of flagged reflections per spatial
zone (surface, four edges, and four corners).
f) Deviation from the gem mint references per
spatial zone. Red points indicate Bonferroni-adjusted significance (p
< 0.05, adjusted); black indicates nominal significance (p < 0.05,
unadjusted).
| sig (auc) | sig (w) | res (auc) | res (w) | dropped | sig+res score | region | integrity | Φ score | contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.36 | 0.46 | 0.41 | sig (w) | 0.54 | surface | 1.00 | 0.54 | 10% |
| edge | 0.81 | 0.44 | 10% | ||||||
| corner | 0.89 | 0.48 | 10% |
Table 1 | Summary of Lambert test statistics and calculation of scores. Exponential-decay scores for significance (Fig. 1c) and response (Fig. 1d) profiles derived from wasserstein distance to gem mint references. Direction and magnitude are determined by weighted mean or AUC, each anchored to a pipe-specific gem mint baseline and decay constant λ, gated by significance of departure from reference (p < 0.05). The lowest of the four component scores is dropped before computing the SIG+RES composite. Integrity (Fig. 1f; x-axis: log₁₀[z]) is applied as a per-region spatial penalty multiplier, down-weighted at marginal significance. Φ score is the product of SIG+RES and Integrity per region (max 10). Contribution is each region’s fractional weight in the final grade.
Figure 1b | The Pendulum algorithm detects
foil scratches and anomalies in holographic foil elements. All
reflectance data are measured using proprietary imaging technology.
Performed only on foil (shiny) cards. Measurements inconsistent with
holographic gem mint reference cards are flagged as irregular
reflections. See Figure 1 legend for panel descriptions; downstream
statistical framework is identical.
| sig (auc) | sig (w) | res (auc) | res (w) | dropped | sig+res | region | integrity | Φ score | contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.28 | 4.40 | 3.23 | 3.62 | res (auc) | 3.77 | surface | 1.00 | 3.77 | 20% |
| edge | 0.34 | 1.30 | 10% | ||||||
| corner | 0.31 | 1.18 | 10% |
Table 1b | Summary of Pendulum Statistics.
See Table 1 legend for column descriptions. Φ scores are calculated per
region using Pendulum test metrics only (max 10).
Figure 3 | Centering and alignment measured
at sub-millimetre precision from proprietary multi-angle reflectance
imaging. Results expressed as L/R ratio, T/B ratio, and centroid
displacement — the geometric centre of the printed image area relative
to the card centre ([0.00, 0.00] = perfect centering).
Top: Aligned
card image and schematic of measured border widths (mm ± SE); diagonals
indicate centroid estimation. Uncertainties reflect inner print edge
detection error.
Bottom left: Centroid displacement (mm) from card
centre; crosshair indicates measured position. Centroid is robust to
inner print rotation and inter-grader variability, and is corrected for
perspective and optical distortion.
Bottom right: L/R and T/B
centering ratios reported as best- and worst-case ranges across
measurement uncertainty.
| region | metric | close to perfect | alignment score | contribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| centroid | (-0.083, 0.097) | No | 8.22 | 10% |
| lr | [48.3/51.7] | No | 7.67 | 5% |
| tb | [48.1/51.9] | No | 7.46 | 5% |
Table 3 | Summary of Centering and
Alignment Statistics. Metric reports the measured value for each region
(centroid displacement in mm; L/R and T/B as border ratios). Alignment
scores reflect proximity to perfect centering. Cards whose margin of
error overlaps 49/51 (or 51/49) receive a perfect alignment score.
Contribution (%) indicates each region’s weight in the overall final
grade.
Figure 4 | Edge and corner integrity of the
card back assessed via 2D image processing. Infractions are detected by
comparison against gem mint reference datasets. Left: Integrity-adjusted
image (greyscale). Right: Unrolled edge strips (top, bottom, left,
right) and corner detail views; false colour encodes infraction
intensity (white = higher intensity). Survival curves for edge and
corner infraction severity; evaluated card (red, solid) compared to gem
mint reference (black, dotted). Distributional distance (w) to gem mint
is quantified with permutation-derived p-values.
| region | res (auc) | Φ score | contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| edge | 9.00 | 0.70 | 5% |
| corner | 0.05 | 0.70 | 5% |
Table 4 | Summary of Back Integrity Statistics. Exponential-decay scores for card back edge and corner derived from wasserstein distance to gem mint references (Fig. 4, bottom). Direction and magnitude are determined by AUC, each anchored to a gem mint baseline and decay constant λ. Φ score is the product of card back edge and corner (max 10). Contribution is each region’s fractional weight in the final grade.
Methodology & Disclosure
All
photometric data are empirically measured using in-house proprietary
imaging technology. Topographic characteristics of surface, edge, and
corner zones are analyzed using the Lambert and Pendulum (holographic
foils only) algorithms. The back surface is not surface scanned, and
relies on statstiatical analysis of 2D imaging data. Φ.exe does not use
any AI-based technologies or image recognition. Centering is measured at
sub-millimetre precision with homographic alignment correction. All
scores are derived from an empirically measured reference population
(gem mint, pristine, 10+) and are fully reproducible and auditable.
Sincere gratitude to the collectors who generously lent their cards to
build the gem mint/pristine dataset.
Questions:
[email protected]