---
analysis-role: source-review
analysis-category: video-sequence
confidence-level: low
confidence-rationale: The retained uploads permit reliable description-to-scene mapping and broad temporal review, but baked overlays, low information density, absent pre-overlay masters, and unauthenticated custody prevent a reliable production-method or historical-authenticity determination.
ai-analysis: true
accuracy-disclaimer: AI-assisted analysis; interpretations are provisional and may contain errors. Verify against cited source material.
ai-generated: true
companion-eligible: true
topic-slug: skinny-bob-ivan0135-original-videos-storyboard
topic-title: Skinny Bob Ivan0135 Original Videos Storyboard
topic-description: Complete source-linked storyboard of four Ivan0135 uploads, preserving all uploader-described fragments, manipulation checks, ordinary controls, curiosities, and production-budget estimates.
guide-description: Maps the original Ivan0135 video family into 13 public frame plates without rehosting the source videos.
topic-audience: serious-uap-readers
topic-priority: 8
created-at: 2026-07-28
updated-at: 2026-07-28
---

# Skinny Bob: Ivan0135 Original Videos Storyboard

> **PUBLIC SOURCE-LINKED STORYBOARD**
>
> Complete description-led storyboard of the four retained Ivan0135 uploads. Raw source frames only; no enhancement, interpolation, or generated reconstruction.

[Return to the canonical Skinny Bob assessment](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC96-Skinny-Bob-Ivan0135-qtecqot-Source-Relationship-and-AI-Assessment.md) · [Complete public visual evidence index](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC99-Skinny-Bob-Visual-Evidence-Plate-Index.md)

## Reading Key

Each sheet samples the uploader-described topic with 5–10 upload-relative frames. The labels below separate the **description claim** from the **visible sequence**. “Manipulation” means observable editing or post-processing; it does not, by itself, identify how the underlying scene was made. The [skinnybob.info research ledger](https://skinnybob.info/) is attributed secondary research, not primary authentication.

## Source Basis

[Open the first Ivan0135 source-frame storyboard in the viewer](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2Fimages%2Fskinny-bob%2Fcase-images%2Fstoryboards%2Fivan0135%2FZB788PtqQvg-tape01-case07-tin-bird-0841-0847.png). The public still is a limited analytical excerpt; the complete source remains on YouTube.

| Upload | Retained source | Storyboard coverage | Availability boundary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `ZB788PtqQvg` — *Disclosure leaked ufo alien case…* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg) | All eight fragments named in the description | 1080p platform derivative; no authenticated pre-overlay master |
| `RsQCXN4o4Ps` — *Alien grey extraterrestrial…* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQCXN4o4Ps) | Three topics identified by the upload’s internal title card | 720p platform derivative; no authenticated pre-overlay master |
| `Xju_CY5ZESA` — *Ivan0135 about ALIEN and UFO documents* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xju_CY5ZESA) | Full text/handprint presentation | Designed response video, not event footage |
| `a6TLGkrfNKI` — *Tape 06 — Family vacation* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6TLGkrfNKI) | Full moving-image fragment | 480p platform derivative; no authenticated pre-overlay master |

## Observation

The following four upload sections preserve all 13 description-led frame observations and keep uploader claims separate from source-visible behavior.

## Upload 1 — Disclosure Compilation (`ZB788PtqQvg`)

The uploader describes “sample edited fragments” from tapes 01, 03, and 04. The visible counters and hard cuts map cleanly to the eight description entries below; that mapping verifies editorial correspondence, not the claimed tape history.

### Tin Bird — airborne object

![Tin Bird raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape01-case07-tin-bird-0841-0847.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 01 · Case 07 / Tin bird · 00:08:41–00:08:47.” Review the retained source from [5.500s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=5.500s).

**Visible sequence:** A small oval/dark airborne form shifts leftward while the blurred building-and-tree background changes with the camera framing; its broad silhouette remains coherent.

**Curiosities:** The community [Tin Bird reconstruction](https://skinnybob.info/#tin_bird) treats stabilization and balloon/blimp alternatives as live tests. The raw sheet supports a stable broad form but does not resolve structure, suspension, or scale.

**Manipulation checks:** Scratches, dust, and a large looping hair-like mark change independently on the frame plane. The timecode and aged gate are plainly part of an editorial presentation layer.

**Ordinary controls:** A balloon/blimp, miniature, conventional composite, or distant object blurred by camera motion can all fit the available pixels.

**Assessment:** The segment is visibly post-treated; the underlying airborne form remains production-method unresolved. No AI-specific temporal failure is exposed.

**Confidence:** Medium for later overlay/editing; low for object identity, production method, date, or provenance.

### Flying Twin — first flight fragment

![Flying Twin first fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape03-case15-flying-twin-2711-2713.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 03 · Case 15 / Flying twin · 00:27:11–00:27:13.” Source entry at [16.500s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=16.500s).

**Visible sequence:** A bright paired or streaked form traverses a severely blurred aerial background, changing apparent length as focus, smear, and framing change.

**Curiosities:** The [Flying Twin research](https://skinnybob.info/#flying_twin) preserves competing label readings and aircraft comparisons; the sampled form is too degraded to select any identification.

**Manipulation checks:** Frame-plane scratches and dirt change while the scene remains soft. Apparent splitting and elongation track blur and clipping rather than a persistent topology change.

**Ordinary controls:** Camera shake, defocus, motion smear, overexposure, aircraft/miniature imagery, and compositing remain sufficient controls.

**Assessment:** Low-information flight imagery with coherent gross motion. It neither establishes a “twin” craft nor supplies positive AI evidence.

**Confidence:** Medium for the edit boundary and blur diagnosis; low for object type and production method.

### Flying Twin — second flight fragment

![Flying Twin second fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape03-case15-flying-twin-2734-2739.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 03 · Case 15 / Flying twin · 00:27:34–00:27:39.” Source entry at [21.700s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=21.700s).

**Visible sequence:** One or more bright elliptical forms drift across a soft city/landscape plate; apparent shape varies with defocus and motion.

**Curiosities:** Large hair/scratch marks cross the scene without respecting subject depth, useful as a frame-plane reference when judging smaller edge changes.

**Manipulation checks:** The degraded-film layer is conspicuous. No stable fine geometry survives to test reflections, attachment points, or occlusion rigorously.

**Ordinary controls:** A filmed aircraft or suspended object, miniature, optical effect, or conventional composite remains visually degenerate at this quality.

**Assessment:** Broad geometry persists, but the evidence ceiling is too low to infer technology or production technique. No repeated generative defect is visible.

**Confidence:** Medium for post-treatment; low for the number, identity, and origin of the bright forms.

### Blue Boys — seated figure

![Blue Boys seated figure raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape04-case23-blue-boys-4250-4251.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 23 / Blue boys · 00:42:50–00:42:51.” Source entry at [26.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=26.000s).

**Visible sequence:** A dark transition gives way to a seated or upper-body silhouette with a rounded head; little subject motion is resolved beyond camera jitter.

**Curiosities:** The [Blue Boys discussion](https://skinnybob.info/#blue_boys) raises nomenclature and chronology questions, but the label itself cannot date or identify the scene.

**Manipulation checks:** Underexposure, gate treatment, dirt, and the overlaid counter dominate. The opening darkness is an edit transition, not a body deformation.

**Ordinary controls:** A puppet, costume, sculpt, performer, CGI/composite, or indistinct ordinary figure could produce the visible silhouette.

**Assessment:** Too brief and dark for anatomy or AI consistency testing; only the broad seated composition is observable.

**Confidence:** High for description-to-counter mapping; low for subject identity and production method.

### Blue Boys — ground/recovery view

![Blue Boys ground and recovery raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape04-case23-blue-boys-4809-4816.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 23 / Blue boys · 00:48:09–00:48:16.” Source entry at [28.500s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=28.500s).

**Visible sequence:** Low craft- or terrain-like views progress into a darker body/figure-like form on the ground, with substantial reframing inside the described interval.

**Curiosities:** The [crash-survivor research](https://skinnybob.info/#crash_survivor) explicitly preserves crash, soldier, and background readings. The sheet confirms why extrapolating distinct entities from the noise is unsafe.

**Manipulation checks:** Multiple compositions and strong tonal compression occur within one labeled fragment. Dirt and scratches sit above the imagery; no continuous fine feature can be tracked.

**Ordinary controls:** Terrain, debris, a staged prop/body, miniature work, and conventional compositing all remain viable.

**Assessment:** The uploader’s “Blue boys” label exceeds what the pixels establish. The sequence is edited and low-information, with no affirmative AI tell.

**Confidence:** Medium for the internal visual progression; low for every scene-level identification.

### Blue Boys meeting — first fragment

![Blue Boys meeting first fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape04-case24-blue-boys-meeting-4730-4732.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 24 / Blue boys meeting · 00:47:30–00:47:32.” Source entry at [39.100s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=39.100s).

**Visible sequence:** Very dark table-, body-, or equipment-like silhouettes shift through several reframings while the `/24` counter advances from 00:47:30 to 00:47:32.

**Curiosities:** The counter range is unusually useful for separating this fragment from the immediately following `/24 00:56:12` shot; the sheet is intentionally cut before that transition.

**Manipulation checks:** Frame-plane dirt and vertical marks vary independently. Blur, underexposure, and rapid reframing erase reliable contact or anatomy detail.

**Ordinary controls:** A dark staged room, tabletop props, performers, miniatures, or composites can all account for the broad shapes.

**Assessment:** Cleanly mapped editorial fragment, but visually non-diagnostic. No AI-specific inconsistency can be distinguished from exposure and blur.

**Confidence:** High for segment boundary and counter mapping; low for scene content and production method.

### Blue Boys meeting — second fragment

![Blue Boys meeting second fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape04-case24-blue-boys-meeting-5612-5614.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 24 / Blue boys meeting · 00:56:12–00:56:14.” Source entry at [43.400s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=43.400s).

**Visible sequence:** A pale, face-like or figure-like form remains close to frame right while a large dark foreground mass dominates the center; the displayed counter advances normally.

**Curiosities:** The underlying composition changes much less than the scratch/dirt field, reinforcing the separation between scene and added frame-plane damage.

**Manipulation checks:** Vertical scratches, spots, and a looped mark cross the face-like region without surface attachment. The segment begins at a hard cut and stays coherent to blackout.

**Ordinary controls:** A mask/sculpt, puppet, costumed performer, conventional render, or composite could retain the same broad face silhouette.

**Assessment:** Evidently post-treated; subject construction remains unresolved. No localized topology collapse or other positive AI signature appears.

**Confidence:** Medium for temporal coherence and overlay separation; low for subject and technique.

### Blue Boys meeting — third fragment

![Blue Boys meeting third fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/ZB788PtqQvg-tape04-case24-blue-boys-meeting-5826-5828.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 24 / Blue boys meeting · 00:58:26–00:58:28.” Source entry at [45.160s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB788PtqQvg&t=45.160s).

**Visible sequence:** After a near-black onset, pale hand/limb- or figure-like forms appear beside a bed-, table-, or barrier-like mass; the camera or subject shifts slightly.

**Curiosities:** Scene interpretation changes dramatically with exposure, a warning against promoting individual pale patches to anatomy.

**Manipulation checks:** Heavy blur and tonal clipping combine with the aged overlay. The near-black first panel is the shot onset and should not be read as generative disappearance.

**Ordinary controls:** Staged performers/props, puppetry, miniatures, and conventional compositing remain equally plausible at this exposure.

**Assessment:** The fragment supports only a dark interaction tableau. It is unsuitable for a meaningful AI anatomy test.

**Confidence:** Medium for sequence boundary; low for object parsing, identity, and origin.

## Upload 2 — Skinny Bob Compilation (`RsQCXN4o4Ps`)

The upload’s internal card identifies two Case 25 segments and one Case 26 segment. The community research on reverse playback, blinking, mouth motion, clothing, eye location, and “robotic” movement supplies test ideas, but none of those interpretations authenticates biology or source history.

### Skinny Bob — head and upper-body study

![Skinny Bob head and upper-body raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/RsQCXN4o4Ps-case25-skinny-bob-0842-0850.png)

**Description claim:** Internal card: “Tape 05 · Case 25 / Skinny Bob · 00:08:42–00:08:50.” Source entry at [24.500s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQCXN4o4Ps&t=24.500s).

**Visible sequence:** A large cranium, dark eye region, narrow lower face, and upper torso remain registered while the head lowers and rises; brief facial highlights change with pose.

**Curiosities:** The [robotic-movement](https://skinnybob.info/#robotic_movement), [mouth](https://skinnybob.info/#mouth), and [eye-location](https://skinnybob.info/#eye_location) discussions are plausible frame-review targets, but low cadence and unknown physiology make motion character non-diagnostic.

**Manipulation checks:** A strong aged-film stack, softness, scratches, and possible cadence alteration obscure eyelid, mouth, and skin-surface behavior. Gross anatomy does not repeatedly fail across the sheet.

**Ordinary controls:** Animatronic/puppet, sculpted practical head, makeup/costume, conventional CGI, or compositing can all produce the retained coherence.

**Assessment:** No positive weak-AI temporal tell is visible. This does not authenticate the figure; practical and conventional digital construction remain unresolved.

**Confidence:** Medium for gross temporal coherence; low for biological status, exact motion mechanism, and production method.

### Skinny Bob — standing body and hands

![Skinny Bob standing body and hands raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/RsQCXN4o4Ps-case25-skinny-bob-2736-2744.png)

**Description claim:** Internal card: “Tape 05 · Case 25 / Skinny Bob · 00:27:36–00:27:44.” Source entry at [39.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQCXN4o4Ps&t=39.000s).

**Visible sequence:** The view travels from long hands and legs toward torso and head. Limb placement and garment folds remain broadly consistent through reframing.

**Curiosities:** The [fingernail discussion](https://skinnybob.info/#fingernails) is a design/lore comparison, not provenance. Dark fingertips are visible but too soft to establish nails, pigmentation, gloves, or prop construction.

**Manipulation checks:** Large circular hair/scratch loops pass over the head in later panels; their motion is independent of the figure. Blur and overlay prevent fine seam or skin testing.

**Ordinary controls:** Costume with prop extensions, puppet/animatronic, sculpt, performer, or conventional CGI/composite remain viable.

**Assessment:** The sequence preserves gross body layout and clothing, arguing against obvious frame-by-frame generative instability while leaving every conventional construction lane open.

**Confidence:** Medium for broad pose/garment continuity; low for anatomy and production attribution.

### How to drive — circular control view

![How to drive raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/RsQCXN4o4Ps-case26-how-to-drive-5507-5512.png)

**Description claim:** Internal card: “Tape 05 · Case 26 / How to drive · 00:55:07–00:55:12.” Source entry at [52.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsQCXN4o4Ps&t=52.000s).

**Visible sequence:** A blurred circular outline and a small bright cluster persist as camera position or focus changes; no control interface can be resolved.

**Curiosities:** The title supplies a functional interpretation that the image itself does not establish.

**Manipulation checks:** Strong defocus, underexposure, clipping, and the overlay stack leave only broad luminance geometry. No reliable moving component is visible.

**Ordinary controls:** A photographed prop, reflection, lens artifact, miniature, or render can explain the circle-and-highlight composition.

**Assessment:** “How to drive” is uploader framing, not an observable function. The segment is non-diagnostic for AI and provenance.

**Confidence:** High that the information floor is insufficient; low for object identity or scene function.

## Upload 3 — Documents Response (`Xju_CY5ZESA`)

### Documents response — fixed handprint and statements

![Documents response raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/Xju_CY5ZESA-documents-response.png)

**Description claim:** The uploader presents a response “about the Documents” and links the earlier uploads. Review from [1.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xju_CY5ZESA&t=1.000s).

**Visible sequence:** A fixed handprint/background plate supports successive text statements, crossfades, and graphic elements across the full upload.

**Curiosities:** The handprint is presentation imagery; its presence does not establish document custody, origin, or a biometric connection to the figures.

**Manipulation checks:** Designed typography, compositing, and fades are overt. This is an editorial graphic video, so “manipulation” is the medium rather than an anomaly.

**Ordinary controls:** Standard motion-graphics or slideshow editing fully explains the visible construction.

**Assessment:** Useful as uploader messaging and linkage, not as visual authentication of the footage or documents.

**Confidence:** High for the editorial construction; low for every provenance claim communicated by it.

## Upload 4 — Family Vacation (`a6TLGkrfNKI`)

### Family Vacation — three-figure meeting fragment

![Family Vacation raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/ivan0135/a6TLGkrfNKI-tape06-family-vacation.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 06 · Family vacation,” framed as a secretly filmed diplomatic meeting under a treaty narrative. Source entry at [72.800s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6TLGkrfNKI&t=72.800s).

**Visible sequence:** A soft color/haze fragment shows one to three slender figure-like forms as the camera moves; broad poses remain coherent while detail dissolves into blur and color fringing.

**Curiosities:** The [Family Vacation research](https://skinnybob.info/#family_vacation) discusses entity counting and stabilization. The raw sheet supports multiple figures but not identity, diplomatic context, or reliable anatomy.

**Manipulation checks:** Low 480p resolution, heavy softness, chromatic fringing, camera movement, and the stylized gate limit fine temporal comparison. No repeated gross anatomy collapse is visible.

**Ordinary controls:** Puppets, costumed performers, miniatures, conventional CGI/compositing, or a deliberately degraded staged scene remain viable.

**Assessment:** The moving fragment is consistent enough to resist a simple “bad AI video” diagnosis, but it is far too degraded to authenticate bodies, setting, or date.

**Confidence:** Medium for broad multi-figure continuity; low for entity count at every instant, production method, and historical claim.

## Family-Level Telltale Ledger

| Signal | What this storyboard establishes | What it does not establish |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Film dirt, scratches, gate, and vignette | Much of the damage sits on the frame plane and is compatible with later treatment; this aligns with the attributed [stock-overlay lead](https://skinnybob.info/#dirt_overlay) | The production method or age of the underlying scene |
| Counters and hard fragment assembly | Description entries map to visible editorial segments; the counter is part of the presentation | Original recording time, tape custody, or archival authenticity |
| Gross temporal coherence | Major silhouettes, garments, limbs, and scene geometry do not repeatedly collapse in these sparse samples | Absence of invisible AI assistance, high-quality AI, CGI, puppetry, costume, or compositing |
| Low information density | Blur, underexposure, compression, and baked effects explain many apparent changes | A positive identification of bodies, craft, location, scale, or camera |
| Recurrent design language | Large crania, dark eyes, narrow bodies, and long hands recur | Biological identity or a single physical subject across scenes |

## Working Assessment

The complete retained Ivan0135 family is **not positively identified as AI-generated by these storyboard samples**. Gross forms are generally temporally coherent, and the most conspicuous changing artifacts belong to the aged-film/editorial layer. That is bounded negative evidence against obvious weak frame-by-frame generation, not proof of authenticity and not a claim that AI played no role.

The stronger finding is that the public uploads are heavily authored presentations: selected fragments, designed titles, overlaid counters, stylized damage, and narrative framing. The [skinnybob.info FAQ](https://skinnybob.info/#faq) makes the correct evidentiary distinction—an edited track does not determine how the underlying scenes were produced. Practical/staged construction, puppetry/animatronics, costume, miniatures, conventional CGI/compositing, and degraded older acquisition all remain live lanes. Without pre-overlay masters, authenticated custody, native cadence, or production files, historical authenticity and specific production-method attribution remain low-confidence.

## Conventional Production Budget Estimate

This is a **2026 USD commercial replacement-cost estimate for the released footage only**—not an estimate of what the uploader actually spent, and not a valuation of alleged unreleased material. It assumes a small professional production replacing the visible shots, including design, fabrication or asset work, photography/rendering, compositing, editorial treatment, and a reasonable revision/contingency allowance. It excludes marketing, distribution, investigation costs, and the value of pre-existing assets.

| Conventional method | Low | Central | High | What principally moves the range |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- |
| CGI / compositing | $40,000 | $120,000 | $350,000 | Reusable models, short visible durations, degradation hiding detail, versus bespoke character/vehicle work, animation, rendering, tracking, and revisions |
| Animatronic / practical | $90,000 | $300,000 | $900,000 | Static sculpts and simple puppets at the low end; articulated heads, full figures, miniatures, sets, operators, performers, camera/lighting, and retakes at the high end |
| Hybrid practical + CGI | $125,000 | $425,000 | $1.2 million | Practical figures/miniatures plus cleanup, augmentation, environment work, tracking, compositing, and the complete aged-film/editorial finish |

The most economical professional central case is **CGI/compositing at about $120,000**. An owner-operator using existing assets, unpaid labor, free locations, and minimal revisions could reduce cash spend below **$25,000**, but that would no longer represent commercial replacement cost; it would convert paid labor into donated time and sunk assets.

**Rate anchors and method.** The ranges are an inference from estimated crew-weeks and materials, not a vendor quote. The US [Bureau of Labor Statistics](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/multimedia-artists-and-animators.htm) reports May 2024 median pay of $99,800 per year / $47.98 per hour for special-effects artists and animators, while its [editor/camera profile](https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/film-and-video-editors-and-camera-operators.htm) reports $70,980 for editors and $68,810 for camera operators. The [Animation Guild wage schedules](https://animationguild.org/helpie_faq/collective-bargaining-agreements-wages/) provide a professional union-floor cross-check for animation/CG labor; [SAG-AFTRA's low-budget production center](https://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/contract/814/rate-sheet/document) is the performer-rate control. Values were rounded into uncertainty bands and expressed in 2026 dollars using the [BLS CPI framework](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). Facility overhead, payroll burden, equipment, materials, render costs, and contingency are layered above direct labor, so the table should be read as order-of-magnitude planning—not forensic proof of production method.

## What Would Upgrade, Weaken, or Falsify the Assessment

- A pre-overlay, native-cadence master exposing subject edges, motion, lighting, and grain attachment.
- Reproducible identification of a stock, prop, costume, render asset, project file, or generative model fingerprint.
- Persistent localized topology, reflection, occlusion, or anatomy failures across adjacent native frames after codec and overlay controls.
- An authenticated custody chain or independently dated pre-2011 source record linking the alleged material to a real archive.
- A practical reproduction or source-resolution match that explains both the figures and their interaction with the photographed environment.

## Related Public Reports

- [Canonical Skinny Bob source relationship and AI assessment](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC96-Skinny-Bob-Ivan0135-qtecqot-Source-Relationship-and-AI-Assessment.md)
- [qtecqot continuation-family storyboard](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC98-Skinny-Bob-qtecqot-New-Videos-Storyboard.md)
- [Complete visual evidence plate index](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC99-Skinny-Bob-Visual-Evidence-Plate-Index.md)