Your summation is inexact enough to be incorrect. But even taking it at face value, it contradicts your assertion that the array is not altered and there is no latent image there--you yourself note that the array is different, in your version, during the exposure than it is before or after.
Originally Posted by wblynch
There is still exactly as much of a latent image there as there is in an exposed frame of film.
That's really here nor there, however. In either case, Naples' argument is nonsense.