Can the distortion-flagging method quantify exactly when visualization breaks down numerically?

Your question asks whether the distortion-flagging method can pinpoint exactly when numerical visualization fails—a precise, technical question about the quantifiability of breakdown thresholds.

The most directly relevant result is in [AG-2026.02-363], which quantifies detectability of phase distortions in gravitational-wave signals using a scaling law. Rather than asking when visualization breaks down, that work identifies *when distortions become detectable* using a single dimensionless parameter: Lambda = Δφ × SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), where detection performance follows an approximately sigmoid transition [AG-2026.02-363]. This means distortion strength and noise together determine observability in a precise, predictable way—moderate distortions are detectable even at low SNR, while smaller distortions need higher SNR.

A related framework appears in [AG-2024.12-445], which develops distortion-driven model misspecification tests to flag when simulations diverge from reality. That work moves from "local distortions" to "global model checks," offering hypothesis-testing machinery to quantify model failure, though it doesn't explicitly map when *visualization* (as opposed to inference) becomes unreliable [AG-2024.12-445].

For CMB analysis, [AG-2026.02-781] improves the frequency hierarchy method for spectral distortions, carefully separating real distortions from temperature signals—a form of numerical hygiene—but doesn't directly address visualization breakdown thresholds [AG-2026.02-781].

The preprints don't squarely address when graphical or numerical visualization of distortions becomes quantitatively unreliable; they instead quantify *detectability* and *model fidelity*, which are related but distinct questions.