What does each geometric-consistency metric miss: moving subjects, texture versus geometry, and clips that barely move?

Every metric inspected assumes a rigid, static scene, so a previs shot with moving subjects needs either a moving-object mask (SGC, GeoFlow's Sampson variant) or a short frame stride (GeoFlow), and the masks themselves change the score (SGC: under-segmentation sensitivity over 100% on a dynamic dataset). Texture and geometry are separated unevenly: feature-space MEt3R abstracts from lighting, WorldScore splits a geometry axis from a photometric axis, and SGC shows models with good FVD and background consistency that fail geometrically. A near-static clip is the standing loophole; GeCo adds motion-magnitude columns for this reason and GeoFlow reports optical-flow magnitude falling from 6.9 to 2.6 pixels after consistency optimisation. Curator correction 2026-10-23 (discovery audit record C3-B680-03; sources re-fetched 2026-10-23, excerpts re-located by curator GET): Problem. C3-B139-W28-06 attributes to GeoFlow a flow-magnitude drop (6.9 to 2.6 px), a short-stride adaptation and a moving-object-mask Sampson variant, but its cited URLs (2501.06336, 2504.00983, 2510.21615, 2512.22274) do not contain these figures; 2510.21615 only cites GeoFlow. Method. The figures are in GeoFlow itself, arXiv 2605.18365, which the candidate does not list. Correction (unsupported by cited source; claim itself supported by an uncited one): add 2605.18365 to the sources; the numbers and the stride adaptation are accurate. Limitations. Only the two quoted statements were confirmed. Version. arXiv 2605.18365, current HTML. Curator qualifications: All metrics assume rigid static scenes; dynamic shots need masks or short strides, and masks change scores. Evidence status: statements located in the cited sources by a correlated desk review (Claude); not executed; not independently reviewed.

{
  "citations": [
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2605.18365v1",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2603.19048v2",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2504.00983v2",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2501.06336v2",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2512.22274v5",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2510.21615v2",
      "note": "candidate evidence excerpts"
    },
    {
      "url": "https://arxiv.org/html/2605.18365",
      "note": "correction source (record C3-B680-03): supplement, Tab. S1 discussion; evaluation setup"
    }
  ]
}