---
analysis-role: source-review
analysis-category: video-sequence
confidence-level: low
confidence-rationale: Broad temporal behavior can be reviewed across all uploader-described topics, but platform derivatives, baked degradation, unauthenticated custody, and visually degenerate practical and digital production alternatives prevent a reliable historical or exact pipeline attribution.
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-qtecqot-new-videos-storyboard
topic-title: Skinny Bob qtecqot New Videos Storyboard
topic-description: Complete source-linked storyboard of three qtecqot uploads, preserving all uploader-described fragments, temporal AI checks, manipulation indicators, ordinary controls, and production-budget estimates.
guide-description: Maps the qtecqot continuation family into 15 public frame plates and compares visible AI, CGI, practical, and editorial indicators.
topic-audience: serious-uap-readers
topic-priority: 8
created-at: 2026-07-28
updated-at: 2026-07-28
---

# Skinny Bob: qtecqot New Videos Storyboard

> **PUBLIC SOURCE-LINKED STORYBOARD**
>
> Complete description-led storyboard of the three retained qtecqot uploads. Raw source frames only; no enhancement, interpolation, AI detector, 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) · [Compare the original Ivan0135 family](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC97-Skinny-Bob-Ivan0135-Original-Videos-Storyboard.md) · [Complete public visual evidence index](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC99-Skinny-Bob-Visual-Evidence-Plate-Index.md)

## Reading Key

Each sheet samples one uploader-described topic with 5–10 upload-relative frames. qtecqot’s tape/case language is treated as a claim and navigation system, not verified archive metadata. The checks prioritize repeated localized anatomy/geometry failure, inconsistent occlusion or reflection, object persistence, scene transitions, and the separation of frame-plane damage from subject motion.

## Source Basis

[Open the first qtecqot source-frame storyboard in the viewer](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2Fimages%2Fskinny-bob%2Fcase-images%2Fstoryboards%2Fqtecqot%2FOpSTlDJWFFI-case11-tin-bird-unauth.png). The public still is a limited analytical excerpt; the complete source remains on YouTube.

| Upload chronology | Retained source | Storyboard coverage | Availability boundary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2026-05-25 · `OpSTlDJWFFI` — *Confidential leaked ufo-ebe footage continuation…* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI) | All five description topics | 1080p video-only platform derivative; no pre-overlay master |
| 2026-06-14 · `Oqw96jCOP7A` — *ET crew recovery site D…* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A) | All eight description topics | 720p video-only platform derivative; no pre-overlay master |
| 2026-07-24 · `l9RAhmPHM_A` — *Interior walkthru and examination…* | [Direct platform video stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RAhmPHM_A) | Both description topics | 1080p video-only platform derivative; no pre-overlay master |

The copied Ivan0135-style keywords, tape/case numbering, counters, black bars, and aged-film treatment demonstrate deliberate narrative and visual continuity. They do not establish common custody or access to original Ivan0135 material.

## Observation

The following three upload sections preserve all 15 description-led frame observations and separate temporal behavior, edit effects, and production-method inference.

## Upload 1 — Continuation of Disclosure (`OpSTlDJWFFI`)

### Tin Bird unauth — opening monochrome fragment

![Tin Bird unauth raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/OpSTlDJWFFI-case11-tin-bird-unauth.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 02 · Case 11 / Tin bird unauth · 00:33:30–00:33:34.” Source entry at [30.700s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI&t=30.700s).

**Visible sequence:** A nearly blank pale field carries changing dust/scratch marks; only a tiny dark mark briefly appears. No stable craft silhouette is resolved.

**Curiosities:** One sampled frame contains faint Cyrillic text near the lower edge, suggesting a residual source or overlay layer worth tracing independently.

**Manipulation checks:** Frame-plane damage is prominent and subject-independent. The absence of a persistent object prevents geometry, occlusion, or motion testing.

**Ordinary controls:** A transition, overexposed plate, stock damage layer, degraded graphic, or near-empty shot fully explains the visible content.

**Assessment:** The description promises “Tin Bird,” but the sampled pixels do not establish one. This segment supplies no positive AI evidence and little production information.

**Confidence:** High that no stable object resolves in the sampled interval; low for what the underlying pale plate represents.

### Mk.4 taxi — short transitional fragment

![Mk.4 taxi raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/OpSTlDJWFFI-case12-mk4-taxi.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 02 · Case 12 / Mk.4 taxi · 01:08:21–01:08:22.” Source entry at [35.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI&t=35.000s).

**Visible sequence:** A smooth oblate disc dominates the monochrome frame, with slight translation and scale change while its broad ellipse and tonal gradient remain stable.

**Curiosities:** The surface is markedly cleaner and smoother than the distressed presentation layer, making the scene look designed without identifying a tool.

**Manipulation checks:** No repeated contour, highlight, or part-count failure appears. Dirt/scratches do not attach to the disc surface.

**Ordinary controls:** Conventional CGI/compositing, a photographed miniature, or a suspended practical object all remain straightforward explanations.

**Assessment:** Strongly compatible with constructed imagery, but not specifically AI-generated. The sample does not discriminate conventional digital from practical work.

**Confidence:** Medium for coherent disc geometry and later overlay; low for the construction method.

### Mk.4 pace lap — extended monochrome flight

![Mk.4 pace lap raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/OpSTlDJWFFI-case12-mk4-pace-lap.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 02 · Case 12 / Mk.4 pace lap · 01:10:55–01:11:21.” Source entry at [40.600s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI&t=40.600s).

**Visible sequence:** A smooth disc appears at changing scale and position through an aircraft-window-like view; foreground cable/window structures occlude it coherently.

**Curiosities:** The clean disc against a degraded monochrome plate is a compositing/constructed-scene lead, while changing distance and reframing provide a useful persistence test.

**Manipulation checks:** Ellipse, broad highlights, and foreground occlusion remain consistent across the long sample. No localized shape mutation survives ordinary blur and scale change.

**Ordinary controls:** A rendered disc composited into a moving plate or a filmed miniature through a window can reproduce the sequence without generative video.

**Assessment:** Conventional CGI/compositing is plausible and practical miniature remains viable. There is no positive weak-AI temporal tell.

**Confidence:** Medium for coherent motion/occlusion and constructed-scene concern; low for exact pipeline and physical scale.

### Tim's show & tell — brief insert

![Tim show and tell raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/OpSTlDJWFFI-case26-tims-show-and-tell.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 05 · Case 26 / Tim’s show & tell · 01:01:18–01:01:19.” Source entry at [83.550s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI&t=83.550s).

**Visible sequence:** A large round or helmet-like form sits at left, an angular strip lies centrally, a small hand-like form points from below, and a possible face occupies frame right. The shot is almost static.

**Curiosities:** The counter changes while underlying pose and geometry barely move, making a still-derived or deliberately held composition plausible.

**Manipulation checks:** No anatomy/geometry failure can be inferred from such limited motion. The aged layer changes more than the scene.

**Ordinary controls:** A staged tableau, still image with post motion, props/puppets, or conventional render/composite all fit.

**Assessment:** Clearly presentation-driven and temporally low-information; it offers no positive AI discriminator.

**Confidence:** Medium for near-static scene behavior; low for object identities and production method.

### Mk.5 virgin — color flight fragment

![Mk.5 color flight raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/OpSTlDJWFFI-case31-mk5-virgin-color.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 06 · Case 31 / Mk.5 virgin (col/s) · 00:57:56–00:58:04.” Source entry at [86.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpSTlDJWFFI&t=86.000s).

**Visible sequence:** A sleek pale metallic disc with a dark recess moves behind an aircraft door/window edge and exits left; silhouette and highlights remain broadly stable.

**Curiosities:** Compared with Ivan0135, the clean specular model and color treatment look newer, but stylistic modernity is not model attribution.

**Manipulation checks:** Foreground occlusion is coherent, and no repeated reflection or contour failure appears. Vignette and film effects sit above the scene.

**Ordinary controls:** Conventional 3D rendering/compositing or a filmed miniature against a moving plate are both sufficient.

**Assessment:** Constructed imagery is plausible; specifically AI-generated remains low-evidence in the sampled sequence.

**Confidence:** Medium for geometric and occlusion coherence; low for exact construction and historical context.

## Upload 2 — Recovery and Entity Compilation (`Oqw96jCOP7A`)

### Tin Bird primer — close craft view

![Tin Bird primer raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case11-tin-bird-primer.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 02 · Case 11 / Tin bird primer · 00:36:02–00:36:07.” Source entry at [15.400s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=15.400s).

**Visible sequence:** A large smooth curved craft-like form moves upward/out of frame, revealing two small figures and a camp/site-like background beneath it.

**Curiosities:** A stable dark emblem/mark appears on the pale curved surface; scale relations are asserted by the composition but cannot be independently measured.

**Manipulation checks:** The curve, emblem, and background reveal remain coherent. The very smooth foreground surface and degraded plate raise conventional compositing or miniature-stage questions.

**Ordinary controls:** A practical foreground miniature, matte/composite, or conventional 3D render can all create the reveal.

**Assessment:** Visually designed and likely constructed, but the sequence does not identify AI. Scene scale and physical continuity remain unverified.

**Confidence:** Medium for broad layer coherence; low for scale, material, and technique.

### Brown Boys — first recovery fragment

![Brown Boys first fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case20-brown-boys-0311-0318.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 20 / Brown boys · 00:03:11–00:03:18.” Source entry at [23.800s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=23.800s).

**Visible sequence:** A blurred terrain/craft-like mass fills the early frames; later views reveal a small pale head/body-like form and surrounding site imagery as the camera reframes.

**Curiosities:** The named “boys” are not continuously resolvable. Interpretation depends strongly on which sub-shot is selected.

**Manipulation checks:** Underexposure, blur, and hard internal reframing dominate. The corrected sheet stops before the following counter jump.

**Ordinary controls:** Staged props/bodies, terrain miniatures, puppets, conventional CGI/compositing, and degraded ordinary footage remain viable.

**Assessment:** The sequence is too low-information to isolate anatomy or generative failure; the label exceeds the visible evidence.

**Confidence:** Medium for the fragment mapping; low for the forms’ identity and production method.

### Brown Boys — second recovery fragment

![Brown Boys second fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case20-brown-boys-0355-0405.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 20 / Brown boys · 00:03:55–00:04:05.” Source entry at [34.200s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=34.200s).

**Visible sequence:** The camera moves from featureless barriers/ground into a view of two dark body- or mound-like forms lying on pale terrain.

**Curiosities:** The paired forms become recognizable only after the reframing; no face, limb count, or contact detail can be tracked reliably.

**Manipulation checks:** Global noise, blur, and frame-plane scratches explain small contour fluctuations. Gross positions stay registered once the forms enter view.

**Ordinary controls:** Props, bundled material, staged bodies, miniatures, or conventional composites remain visually indistinguishable.

**Assessment:** Broad paired forms are persistent, but the segment contains no affirmative AI tell and no reliable biological evidence.

**Confidence:** Medium for positional coherence; low for anatomy, identity, and origin.

### Brown Boys — third brief fragment

![Brown Boys third fragment raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case20-brown-boys-0410-0411.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 20 / Brown boys · 00:04:10–00:04:11.” Source entry at [38.480s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=38.480s).

**Visible sequence:** After pale ground/transition frames, the same paired mound/body-like forms occupy a nearly fixed composition while damage marks change.

**Curiosities:** A very short counter interval is stretched into a readable held view, making cadence and editorial timing worth checking against any future master.

**Manipulation checks:** Changing black specks and scratches sit on the frame plane; the paired gross geometry remains stable.

**Ordinary controls:** A still or held shot of props, miniatures, staged bodies, or a conventional render/composite fully explains the persistence.

**Assessment:** Stable broad forms, no resolvable anatomy, and no positive weak-AI instability.

**Confidence:** Medium for gross persistence; low for the nature of the depicted forms.

### Triage — close entity face

![Triage face raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case21-triage.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 21 / Triage · 00:15:01–00:15:06.” Source entry at [40.600s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=40.600s).

**Visible sequence:** A close sculptural face with a large cranium, glossy dark eyes, small nose/mouth, and narrow jaw remains nearly fixed while highlights and overlay marks fluctuate.

**Curiosities:** The modeled facial planes and glassy eye highlights read cleanly despite the damaged-film layer, making a sculpt/animatronic or conventional digital portrait a strong control.

**Manipulation checks:** Cranium, eye boundaries, highlight placement, nose, jaw, and neck remain coherent. The corrected sheet ends before the Case 22 cut.

**Ordinary controls:** A practical sculpt or animatronic head, photographed model, conventional CGI, or composite can all reproduce the shot.

**Assessment:** No repeated topology or eye-reflection failure supports weak AI generation; practical and conventional CGI remain unresolved.

**Confidence:** Medium for facial-plane coherence; low for whether the head is practical or digital.

### Exit EBL04 — carried figure

![Exit EBL04 raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case22-exit-ebl04.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 04 · Case 22 / Exit EBL04 · 00:30:26–00:31:14.” Source entry at [48.050s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=48.050s).

**Visible sequence:** A small large-headed figure rests against or is held by pale foreground forms; its head orientation shifts slightly while a human-like face/holder is intermittently visible behind.

**Curiosities:** The embrace/carry composition provides contact and occlusion cues, but the sampling does not establish weight transfer or independent body motion.

**Manipulation checks:** The figure’s head, eye region, and foreground occlusion remain broadly coherent; low contrast and softness hide seams and fine anatomy.

**Ordinary controls:** A puppet/doll held by a performer, prosthetic prop, staged practical effect, or conventional composite are direct explanations.

**Assessment:** Practical staging is a strong lane; the frames do not positively indicate AI or authenticate an entity.

**Confidence:** Medium for gross contact/occlusion; low for the figure’s construction and scene provenance.

### Bob's walkabout — exterior figure

![Bob walkabout raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case25-bobs-walkabout.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 05 · Case 25 / Bob’s walkabout · 00:02:07–00:02:12.” Source entry at [54.200s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=54.200s).

**Visible sequence:** A slender large-headed figure stands or makes limited forward movement before a fixed exterior building/terrain background; body and head proportions remain stable.

**Curiosities:** The apparent movement is subtle enough that puppetry, animation, camera motion, or a lightly animated still should be compared in native cadence.

**Manipulation checks:** Limbs remain connected and background perspective does not visibly warp. Frame-plane dirt and counter changes are separable from the figure.

**Ordinary controls:** Puppet, miniature, costumed performer, stop-motion/animation, or conventional CGI composite remain viable.

**Assessment:** Gross pose continuity argues against obvious weak generative video, but production and physical scale are unresolved.

**Confidence:** Medium for silhouette continuity; low for locomotion mechanism and scene construction.

### Slim Tim — studio-like portrait sequence

![Slim Tim portrait raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/Oqw96jCOP7A-case25-slim-tim.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 05 · Case 25 / Slim Tim · 00:40:12–00:40:40.” Source entry at [61.600s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqw96jCOP7A&t=61.600s).

**Visible sequence:** A highly designed large-cranium figure appears in front, three-quarter, and side portrait views. Eye shape, cranial volume, jaw, and narrow neck stay coherent across cuts.

**Curiosities:** Changing viewpoints may be separate shots or renders rather than one continuous performance; the large glossy eyes and smooth facial planes look deliberately modeled.

**Manipulation checks:** No persistent anatomy collapse appears within views. Hard cuts, lighting changes, and the overlay stack must not be misread as morphing.

**Ordinary controls:** A sculpt/animatronic photographed from multiple angles or a conventional 3D model/render suite are strong alternatives.

**Assessment:** Conventional constructed portraiture is more strongly supported than weak AI video, though the sheet cannot select practical versus digital.

**Confidence:** Medium for cross-view design continuity; low for exact medium and whether all views depict one asset.

## Upload 3 — Interior Walkthrough (`l9RAhmPHM_A`)

### Mk.4 early boarding — interior walkthrough

![Mk.4 early boarding raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/l9RAhmPHM_A-case18-mk4-early-boarding.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 03 · Case 18 / Mk.4 early boarding · 02:13:18–02:23:57.” Source entry at [16.000s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RAhmPHM_A&t=16.000s).

**Visible sequence:** The long monochrome passage moves through sparse curved interiors, glossy circular assemblies, apertures/highlights, dark transitions, and changing camera angles.

**Curiosities:** The uploader’s embedded tape counter advances far faster than the two-minute upload, demonstrating heavy temporal selection or counter simulation rather than continuous displayed tape duration.

**Manipulation checks:** Curved forms and bright apertures remain broadly consistent, but underexposure, highlight clipping, and large gaps between samples prevent fine geometry tracking. The sequence is assembled from multiple views.

**Ordinary controls:** A dark practical set/miniature, conventional 3D environment, composited macro photography, or hybrids remain sufficient.

**Assessment:** The walkthrough has coherent designed geometry but is non-diagnostic between ordinary constructed methods; no positive AI-specific defect emerges.

**Confidence:** Medium for the montage/edit and broad geometry; low for layout, scale, function, and pipeline.

### False Cape study — hands and tabletop objects

![False Cape study raw source storyboard](/media/Release_4/Analysis/images/skinny-bob/case-images/storyboards/qtecqot/l9RAhmPHM_A-case28-false-cape-study.png)

**Description claim:** “Tape 05 · Case 28 / False Cape study · 02:51:01–02:51:32.” Source entry at [124.200s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RAhmPHM_A&t=124.200s).

**Visible sequence:** Two pale long-fingered hands rest on a table while ordinary-looking hands enter from above, use a scissor/clamp-like tool, manipulate a small dark wired object, and withdraw. A document and image card remain registered.

**Curiosities:** The resting hands have dark tips and differing apparent digit proportions, but the coherent tool use, contact, shadows, and occlusion are the strongest practical-interaction evidence in the qtecqot family.

**Manipulation checks:** Digit counts and object placement remain stable; entering hands occlude the resting hands and cable coherently. No persistent generative hand defect appears.

**Ordinary controls:** Prosthetic/prop hands on a staged tabletop are strongest. Conventional compositing or rendered props remain possible but are not required.

**Assessment:** Practical/staged photography is favored. AI-specific evidence is low, and the scene does not authenticate a specimen or location.

**Confidence:** Medium-high for coherent practical interaction; low for the nature of the resting hands and historical provenance.

## Family-Level Telltale Ledger

| Signal | Observed implication | Guardrail |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Repeated Ivan0135 metadata and aesthetics | Deliberate derivative continuity in presentation | Not evidence of shared custody or source access |
| Clean discs and sculptural faces beneath damage | Conventional modeled/composited or practical construction is plausible | Smooth design is not a specific AI fingerprint |
| Stable gross anatomy, occlusion, and highlights | No positive weak frame-to-frame AI failure in the sampled topics | Does not exclude high-quality or invisible AI assistance |
| Frame-plane dirt, gate, counters, and black bars | Later editorial treatment is strongly compatible with the pixels | Does not date or classify the underlying imagery |
| Hands/tool interaction | Practical staging best explains one especially informative sequence | Does not establish that every qtecqot scene uses the same method |
| Unauthenticated 2026 continuation narrative | Historical and custody claims remain unverified | Copied labels and keyword similarity cannot authenticate them |

## Working Assessment

Across **all 15 uploader-described qtecqot topics**, these broad storyboards show no repeated localized topology, digit-count, reflection, occlusion, or object-persistence failure that survives ordinary blur, compression, film-damage, and cut controls. That means there is **no positive sampled-frame basis to call the videos weak AI-generated footage**.

The stronger working model is a derivative conventional-production family assembled with ordinary editorial tools. Conventional CGI/compositing is plausible for the clean discs, interiors, and portrait assets; practical/staged photography is particularly strong for the hands/tabletop interaction and viable for figures, sculpts, puppets, costumes, and miniatures elsewhere. Some shots remain too dark or degraded to discriminate anything. AI assistance could exist in concept art, cleanup, texture generation, compositing, or a well-controlled generation pipeline, but possibility is not visible evidence.

Historical authenticity remains a separate, low-confidence question. The uploads provide no authenticated bridge to Ivan0135, no independently preserved pre-2026 record of their unique case labels, no camera/date verification, no pre-overlay source, and no production files. A disclosure-forward lane in which older acquisition was re-edited in 2026 is not logically excluded, especially for low-information scenes, but it currently has less evidence than derivative production.

## Conventional Production Budget Estimate

This is a **2026 USD commercial replacement-cost estimate for the released footage only**—not an estimate of qtecqot's actual spend, and not a valuation of any claimed archive. It assumes a small professional production replacing the visible shots across the three retained uploads, including design, fabricated or digital assets, camera/render work, compositing, editing, the aged-film presentation layer, revisions, and contingency. It excludes marketing, distribution, investigation costs, and hypothetical unseen footage.

| Conventional method | Low | Central | High | What principally moves the range |
| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- |
| CGI / compositing | $75,000 | $225,000 | $650,000 | Reusable disc/entity assets at the low end; multiple modeled environments, character animation, lighting/rendering, tracking, cleanup, and revision cycles at the high end |
| Animatronic / practical | $175,000 | $550,000 | $1.6 million | Simple sculpts, props, miniatures, and limited sets versus articulated figures, multiple craft/interior builds, performers/operators, locations, camera/lighting, and retakes |
| Hybrid practical + CGI | $225,000 | $725,000 | $2.0 million | Practical hands, figures, sets, and miniatures combined with digital craft, environment extensions, cleanup, animation, compositing, and unified degradation/editorial treatment |

The most economical professional central case is **CGI/compositing at about $225,000**. Existing models, owner labor, volunteer performers, free locations, and a deliberately rough delivery could reduce cash spend below **$50,000**, but that scenario substitutes donated time and sunk assets for commercial replacement cost.

**Rate anchors and method.** These ranges infer crew-weeks and materials from the released shot family; they are not vendor quotes. 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/) supply a professional union-floor cross-check for animation/CG labor, and [SAG-AFTRA's low-budget production center](https://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/contract/814/rate-sheet/document) supplies the performer-rate control. Values were rounded into broad uncertainty bands and expressed in 2026 dollars under the [BLS CPI framework](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm). Facility overhead, payroll burden, equipment, materials, fabrication, render costs, and contingency sit above direct labor, so the result is an order-of-magnitude production model, not evidence that any listed method was used.

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

- Native, pre-overlay sources showing cadence, lighting, reflections, edge response, grain attachment, and continuous subject motion.
- Project files or a verifiable production account tying a scene to CGI, compositing, practical effects, or a generative model.
- Source-resolution asset matches for the discs, faces, props, dirt overlay, typography, or staged tabletop elements.
- Persistent localized anatomy/geometry failures across adjacent native frames after codec, blur, and edit controls.
- Authenticated custody evidence connecting qtecqot to Ivan0135 or independently dated pre-2026 records of qtecqot-only material.

## 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)
- [Ivan0135 original-family storyboard](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC97-Skinny-Bob-Ivan0135-Original-Videos-Storyboard.md)
- [Complete visual evidence plate index](/?open=Release_4%2FAnalysis%2FC99-Skinny-Bob-Visual-Evidence-Plate-Index.md)