fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

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

Browse Source 
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.
This commit is contained in:
Sylpheed RE agent
2026-08-29 04:56:13 +00:00
parent be937e3d5d
commit 0db76bcc57
4 changed files with 51 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -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.

7
docs/re/REFUTED.md
View File

@@ -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)

28
docs/re/structures/ui-group-start-time.md
View File

@@ -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.