port: the one load-bearing thing in the denominator thread, checked against the port

Their substantive point was not about counting: a static record still declares a
cycle length, and a nonzero +0x08 against a largest keyframe time of 0 is a real
disagreement. That is a rendering question for this port and it had not been
asked.

Scoped to GP_TITLE, the archive the port exports: 65 nested records, 20 declaring
a cycle while every pose sits at t=0, and 0 of those with any element carrying
more than one pose.

So the declared cycle is visually inert on every one of them. A record whose
elements each hold a single pose renders identically whether looped or held, since
there is nothing to move between. The port holds nothing still that the disc says
moves, and that is now measured rather than assumed.

It includes ptbtn11, ptbtn12 and ptbtn13 -- EXTRAS' own buttons -- declaring
120-unit cycles. Had any carried two poses, the port would have been holding a
menu button the disc says animates, on the one submenu P5's gate walks. The check
cost one scan and the answer could have gone the other way.

That is the thread's yield stated honestly. Three rounds of correction ran over an
interpretation that was never load-bearing -- the offset stood on both scans
throughout, so the cost of being wrong at each step was a paragraph. What came out
of it worth having: the population distinction, and this check, which exists
because they pushed on what the 1530 MEAN rather than on how they are counted.

Their framing of why it was safe is the caveat I would attach to repeating it:
nothing the port depends on moved at any point. That made three rounds cheap. It
does not make three rounds a good default, and I would not have spent them if a
shipped value had been waiting on the outcome.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF

docs/port/DECISIONS.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 
 <!-- INDEX: generated by tools/port/index-decisions -- do not hand-edit -->
 
-310 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
+311 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
 
 * [P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28](#p0--the-exporter-2026-08-28)
 * [P1 — Godot draws the screen, 2026-08-28](#p1--godot-draws-the-screen-2026-08-28)
@@ -321,6 +321,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 * [🔴 My falsifier never identified the offset — the half I called a formality did](#my-falsifier-never-identified-the-offset--the-half-i-called-a-formality-did)
 * [The 92.3 %-versus-49.6 % gap: same numerator, and their filter is not applied](#the-923--versus-496--gap-same-numerator-and-their-filter-is-not-applied)
 * [🔴 Correcting my own correction: none of the 1 530 is a question without content](#correcting-my-own-correction-none-of-the-1-530-is-a-question-without-content)
+* [The one load-bearing thing in the denominator thread, checked against the port](#the-one-load-bearing-thing-in-the-denominator-thread-checked-against-the-port)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -15302,3 +15303,40 @@ throughout; every disagreement has been about what they were counting.**
 equals the largest keyframe time exactly where that time is nonzero, `+0x04` does
 so **0 %** of the time under either denominator, and the offset identification
 stands on both scans.
+
+## The one load-bearing thing in the denominator thread, checked against the port
+
+Their substantive point was not about counting: **a static record still declares a
+cycle length**, and a nonzero `+0x08` against a largest keyframe time of 0 is a
+real disagreement. That is a *rendering* question for this port, and it had not
+been asked.
+
+Scoped to the archive the port exports:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| nested records in `GP_TITLE` | **65** |
+| declaring a cycle while every pose sits at t = 0 | **20** |
+| **of those, with any element carrying more than one pose** | **0** |
+
+✅ **So the declared cycle is visually inert on every one of them.** A record whose
+elements each hold a single pose renders identically whether looped or held —
+there is nothing to move between. **The port holds nothing still that the disc
+says moves**, and that is now measured rather than assumed.
+
+⚠️ It includes `ptbtn11`/`12`/`13` — EXTRAS' own buttons — declaring 120-unit
+cycles. Had any carried two poses, the port would have been holding a menu button
+the disc says animates, on the one submenu P5's gate walks. **The check cost one
+scan and the answer could have gone the other way.**
+
+📌 **And this is the thread's whole yield stated honestly.** Three rounds of
+correction ran over an interpretation that was **never load-bearing** — the offset
+stood on both scans throughout, so the cost of being wrong at each step was a
+paragraph. What came out of it that was worth having: the **population
+distinction**, and this one check, which exists because they pushed on what the
+1 530 *mean* rather than on how they are counted.
+
+⚠️ Their framing of why it was safe is the caveat I would attach to repeating it:
+**nothing the port depends on moved at any point.** That made three rounds cheap.
+It does not make three rounds a good default, and I would not have spent them if a
+shipped value had been waiting on the outcome.