It does not say that in the article - this one and on a previous HN submission where I read about this. However, you are right - if you go to Tutorials and Sca

It does not say that in the article - this one and on a previous HN submission where I read about this. However, you are right - if you go to Tutorials and Scanning there is reference to the creation of a 'campfire scroll'. And now we have some detail..... and the detail is problematic. In tutorial 3, halfway down this page (https://scrollprize.org/tutorial3 https://scrollprize.org/tutorial3) there is a before and after comparison of the scroll. They ask a question "If you look back to the last page of the campfire scroll (before carbonization), can you see which area of the scroll this segment came from?". This is mean to be obvious to answer - and one does have the 2 images to compare. My thoughts on the comparison is - yes at a glance the there is a section that appears to match up - the 'angular squiggle' next to the @ symbol. However, if I look more closely at the 'angular squiggle' I see features and spaces in the generated image that do not correlate with the photo before carbonisation. The troughs are too deep, the spaces are too big. It seems to be a superficial similarity only. I wish I could show what I mean by referencing the images.. But I will provide links for others to see what I mean when I say there is a superficial correlation only. https://scrollprize.org/img/tutorials/vc-segment.png https://scrollprize.org/img/tutorials/vc-segment.png https://scrollprize.org/img/tutorials/campfire-last-page.jpg https://scrollprize.org/img/tutorials/campfire-last-page.jpg Final thought - why not map the 2 images one over the other on the site? Why ask a leading question rather than provide a proof? I hate that kind of presentation - it smacks of providing enough information for someone to make an incorrect snap judgement.