GateTrue

What each generator documents about marking its output

Two entries whose answers actually diverge

Each page here puts two entries beside each other on a column where their answers genuinely diverge. Pairs whose answers merely differ in price are not here, because a price gap is a packaging decision rather than a finding. As of 2026-09-22.

When two entries are worth putting side by sideA pair earns a page when the two vendors answer the same column with different mechanisms rather than with different numbers. A price gap is a packaging decision; a switch against a plan benefit is a different set of consequences for whoever holds the file.How do these two entries differ on one columnDifferent mechanismWorth a pageA setting against a planbenefit, or a parameteragainst a tier: differentconsequences.Different price, samemechanismLeft in the tableA crossing point tendollars apart tells areader about packaging,not about files.Same mechanism, same valueNot a pairNine rows share onecontrol value word forword; pairing them wouldrestate the column.How the pairs on this site were chosen
Fig. 1 The test is whether a reader would act differently, not whether the two values look different in a table.

A comparison is worth a page when the two vendors are not answering the same question in different words. A switch in settings and a benefit on a plan grid are two different mechanisms with two different sets of consequences, and putting them in one row of the support table flattens that into a column called control. Putting them on one page does the opposite.

Pairs are chosen by the shape of the disagreement, not by product category. Two avatar tools that both stop marking at the same price are less interesting than an avatar tool and a film generator whose first paid plans disagree about whether payment removes anything at all. The register is organised around statements, so the pairs are too.

Nothing on these pages is scored, ranked or recommended. Both columns carry the vendor's own wording, the address it was read from and the date it was read, and the argument in the prose is about what the two statements let a reader do, not about which product is better run.

1The pairs

  • A switch and a benefit — Both tie removal to paying; one lets the paying member flip it per render, the other lifts it for every file on the plan.
  • Two off-switches — Two documented switches for the visible mark, one held by an integrator and one by a paid member.
  • Buying later, or not — One crossing point cleans whatever comes next; the other cannot reach the files already made.
  • The first payment — On one entry the cheapest paid plan is clean; on the other it is still marked, and the page says so.
  • No free plan, or a stated one — One vendor publishes no free plan at all; the other lists its own watermark among free features.
  • A standard or a price — One entry names the standard in the file and no plan; the other names a plan and nothing in the file.
  • Who reads the signal — Two named schemes, and only one comes with a route somebody outside the vendor can use.
  • Inside or around — A manifest attached around the picture and a signal carried inside it fail in opposite directions.
  • One price, two nouns — Two avatar tools cross at the same figure and use different words for the thing being removed.
  • Marking and licence — Two grids where the marking boundary and the commercial licence sit in different places.
  • Crossing points with no figure — Two boundaries whose price cannot be quoted, for two entirely different reasons.
  • A reference and a card — An interface reference that lists everything and no provenance field, beside a card that names two mechanisms.
  • Trial output, two shapes — One free tier leaves a permanent mark on everything it made; the other simply runs out.
  • A paid switch, or no route — One vendor gives paid members a switch for the visible badge and keeps an invisible layer on; the other publishes no route at all.
  • Ten dollars, or twenty-eight — Two grids, one where the first payment is enough and one where the third plan is.
  • The described marks — The two entries that say what their visible mark actually looks like, each scoped to a route rather than the model.
  • No free plan, or one that runs out — Neither has a standing free tier, and only one of them ever produced a marked file.
  • Outside a price list — Two marking statements published somewhere other than a pricing page, and both name a signal in the file.
  • Named, or avoided — One grid lists its own watermark among free features; the other never prints the word at all.
  • Two routes, as read in September — Both sell the same models two ways; in September one documented both routes and they disagreed. That half is now a dated record.

Ordered by the column they disagree on, so the pairs arguing about the same thing sit together.

Elsewhere in the register: Generators, Fields, Readings, Implementers, Questions, Findings, Source documents, Terms, Learn, Data. Field definitions live on the protocol page.

2From the production side

Next to the marking question in “Side by side”, SceneMixer's pages describe its output like this:

Each line is generated with the picture, in the voice chosen for that character, and the speaker's lips move with the words.

SceneMixer, Dialogue Lines: Delivery Notes, Voice-Over, Captions and the Voice Tag — “Is the dialogue really spoken in the video?” (read 2026-10-13)

Downloads and the asset library follow your Music switch; a shared link always plays the version with the episode’s music.

SceneMixer, Background Music in an AI Short Drama: The Built-in Score — “Does the music carry into downloads, the library and shared links?” (read 2026-10-13)