re(ui): re-establish selective activation by killing the alternative statically

Last iteration I withdrew "a bundle is a palette" because the evidence
did not choose between selective activation within one bundle and two
compositions shown in sequence. The alternative can be killed from the
disc, which I had not tried.

Hypothesis 2 needs a bundle declaring the GLOWS WITHOUT THE LOGOS. There
is none. Every GP_TITLE entry carrying palogo elements:

  10, 13 (publisher twins)  palogo_eff0.prm, palogo_sqex, palogo_sqex_eff
  11, 14 (developer twins)  palogo_eff0.prm + all three logos + all three glows

Four entries, and each developer entry declares the complete set of six.
So whichever bundle was active across frames 94-211 -- entry 11, entry
14, or both in turn -- it declared the logos and the glows, while the
game drew two sprites at a time in disjoint phases.

Therefore only a subset of a bundle's elements is drawn at any moment,
whatever the bundle-loading story is. The conclusion no longer depends on
resolving how many bundles are involved, which is why the texture-base
test's failure stopped mattering.

So the claim is reinstated -- this time by eliminating the alternative
rather than by assuming it away. What worked was not a better capture but
asking what the competing hypothesis would REQUIRE on the disc and
finding it absent.

METHOD: a hypothesis that predicts an artefact can be killed by looking
for the artefact, which is often far cheaper than measuring the behaviour.

docs/port/HANDOFF.md

@@ -360,13 +360,15 @@ authored version can be deleted.
   **zero** contain both a glow and a logo; the switch is one clean boundary with
   two sprites either side.
   🔴 **And it goes further than start times — a bundle's declared elements are
-  not what gets drawn.** ⚠️ I previously called this "a bundle is a palette,
-  selectively activated"; **the mechanism is withdrawn** — the evidence does not
-  choose between "one bundle, selective activation" and "two compositions shown
-  in sequence". The texture-base test that looked like it would separate them
-  fails its own control: the publisher splash is a different bundle and uses the
-  same base `0x11C30000`, so that address is a reused upload slot, not an
-  identity. The consequence for you is unchanged; the reason is not established. Entry 11 declares *three* logo/glow pairs; only two are ever drawn.
+  not what gets drawn.** ✅ **And the mechanism is now established, by
+  elimination.** The competing story — "two compositions shown in sequence" —
+  needs a bundle declaring the glows *without* the logos, and no such bundle
+  exists: only four entries in `GP_TITLE` carry `palogo` elements, and each
+  developer entry (11, 14) declares **all six** logos and glows. So whichever
+  bundle was active, only a subset of its elements was drawn at a time.
+  (An earlier texture-base test could not separate the two — it failed its own
+  control, since the publisher splash is a different bundle and shares the base
+  `0x11C30000`, a reused upload slot rather than an identity.) Entry 11 declares *three* logo/glow pairs; only two are ever drawn.
   `palogo_anima` gets **0 frames** while `palogo_gamearts` gets **95**, from
   byte-identical keyframe times. (Reach: the capture covers frames 1–214, so
   "never in the window".) **Compositing every element of a bundle does not

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -819,3 +819,10 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   activates its elements selectively" was an explanation I attached to it, and it
   is not established. Bundling the two let the weaker claim inherit the stronger
   one's evidence.
+* **Ask what the competing hypothesis would REQUIRE on the disc.** Two
+  explanations for the splash's disjoint phases looked separable only by a
+  capture I could not take, and the capture-side test failed its control. The
+  alternative needed a bundle declaring the glows without the logos — a
+  four-entry enumeration showed none exists, and the question closed statically.
+  A hypothesis that predicts an artefact can be killed by looking for the
+  artefact, which is often far cheaper than measuring the behaviour.

docs/re/REFUTED.md

@@ -588,3 +588,10 @@ neighbourhood, not just the line.
   that address is a reused upload slot, not a bundle identity. What survives is
   that declared elements ≠ drawn elements.
   [`ui-group-start-time.md`](structures/ui-group-start-time.md)
+* "two compositions shown in sequence" (as the alternative to selective
+  activation) → **refuted statically.** It requires a bundle declaring the glows
+  without the logos; no such bundle exists. Only four `GP_TITLE` entries carry
+  `palogo` elements, and both developer entries declare **all six** logos and
+  glows — so whichever was active, a subset of its elements was drawn at a time.
+  Selective activation is reinstated on evidence.
+  [`ui-group-start-time.md`](structures/ui-group-start-time.md)

docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md

@@ -151,3 +151,31 @@ element of a bundle does not reproduce what the game shows over time — but the
 ❔ What would separate them: a per-draw capture recording the **bundle** each draw
 came from, or a kernel/file-IO log showing whether a second RATC entry is read
 between frames 115 and 116.
+
+---
+
+## ✅ Re-established, by elimination — selective activation is happening
+
+**2026-08-29.** The alternative can be killed statically, which I had not tried.
+Hypothesis 2 needs a bundle that declares the **glows without the logos**. There
+is none. Enumerating every entry in `GP_TITLE` that contains `palogo` elements:
+
+| entry | elements |
+|---|---|
+| 10, 13 (publisher twins) | `palogo_eff0.prm`, `palogo_sqex`, `palogo_sqex_eff` |
+| 11, 14 (developer twins) | `palogo_eff0.prm`, **all three logos and all three glows** |
+
+Four entries, and each developer entry declares the **complete set of six**. So
+whichever bundle was active across frames 94–211 — entry 11, entry 14, or both in
+turn — it declared the logos *and* the glows, while the game drew two sprites at
+a time in disjoint phases.
+
+**⇒ Only a subset of a bundle's elements is drawn at any moment, whatever the
+bundle-loading story is.** The conclusion does not depend on resolving how many
+bundles are involved, which is why the texture-base test's failure no longer
+matters.
+
+✅ So "a bundle is a palette, not a script" is **reinstated** — this time by
+eliminating the alternative rather than by assuming it away. The route that
+worked was not a better capture but asking what the competing hypothesis would
+*require on the disc*, and finding it absent.