Configure and audit multi-projector output mapping

Why use this

1. An installation operator may have correct-looking software output settings while projector labels, physical orientation or overlap differ on site. A screenshot of the control interface cannot establish that the intended image reaches the correct surface.

2. A routing and calibration checklist could connect software settings with operator-confirmed physical observations. It should distinguish proposed corrections from verified alignment and keep live show changes under the responsible operator’s control.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile output paths, display assignments and observed symptoms while identifying checks that require physical confirmation.

Simpler alternative

Use the projection application’s calibration tools directly for a small familiar setup.

Unsuitable when

No on-site operator can verify display identity, alignment or safe change timing.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Installation map

   Owner

   Technical owner

   Minimum scope

   Named projectors, display IDs, surfaces and intended resolutions

   Quality check

   Confirm physical labels against actual connections.

2. Name

   Current configuration and observations

   Owner

   On-site operator

   Minimum scope

   Routing, warp/blend settings and authorized visual notes

   Quality check

   Separate software-reported state from physically verified output.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read-only configuration copies and an offline audit checklist before output changes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: exact runtime, display APIs, projector hardware and rendering capacity.

External actions requiring approval

1. Changing display routing, calibration or live output settings.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Output-path audit with proposed adjustments and explicit physical-verification checkpoints.

Critical checks

1. Each software display maps to the operator-confirmed physical projector.

2. Resolution, geometry, overlap and performance checks remain separately recorded.

Missing output evidence

No hardware control, calibration or physical output inspection occurs in this overlay.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   Operating-system display numbers differ from physical labels.

   Why it matters

   An adjustment could affect the wrong projector.

   Proposed response

   Require an operator-confirmed identification check before changing routing.

2. Signal

   A software preview looks aligned while physical edges do not.

   Why it matters

   The audit could falsely declare calibration complete.

   Proposed response

   Keep alignment unresolved and request on-site visual adjustment and confirmation.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Document physical connections and preserve current configuration.

Ongoing review

1. Coordinate operator checks after approved changes.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: hardware compatibility, performance headroom and calibration labor.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invented configuration maps two displays to reversed physical labels and reports a resolution mismatch on one output.

Acceptance checks

1. Both discrepancies block a verified-mapping conclusion.

2. Physical confirmation is required before proposed correction.

Stop conditions

1. Live output changes or unavailable on-site verification are required.

Limits

1. Editorial technical audit; software evidence alone cannot establish physical alignment or safe live operation.