From 0db76bcc57be9ba47a6ef3c5dc5c77651c6d0843 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sylpheed RE agent Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 04:56:13 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] 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 | 16 +++++++------ docs/re/METHOD.md | 7 ++++++ docs/re/REFUTED.md | 7 ++++++ docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md b/docs/port/HANDOFF.md index 86d2d015..f62cb221 100644 --- a/docs/port/HANDOFF.md +++ b/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not what gets drawn.** ⚠️ I previously called this "a bundle is a palette, - selectively activated"; **the mechanism is withdrawn** — the evidence does not - choose between "one bundle, selective activation" and "two compositions shown - in sequence".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 diff --git a/docs/re/METHOD.md b/docs/re/METHOD.md index ad1f6dd3..9f2456a1 100644 --- a/docs/re/METHOD.md +++ b/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. diff --git a/docs/re/REFUTED.md b/docs/re/REFUTED.md index 7382b93d..48dba6bb 100644 --- a/docs/re/REFUTED.md +++ b/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) diff --git a/docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md b/docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md index 1075bc12..9dfa4eab 100644 --- a/docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md +++ b/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.