re: the port was still being told SE audio is undecodable -- it is not

A resolve-check on HANDOFF's own rows. Q8 read "SE audio is undecodable
from the disc -- no XACT container exists anywhere". menu-audio-cues.md
retracted exactly that ("### Retracting 'cannot be extracted'") and
locates three cues in Static.slb that decode to PCM: d-pad move 0x1ec0
(4 packets), (B) back 0x0ec0 (2), (A) confirm 0x5d6c0 (6), all mono
48 kHz. The retraction landed in docs/re/ and the page the port reads
kept the superseded text -- the fourth time in this corpus.

Writing the rule down has not worked, so there is a tool now.
handoff_lint.py flags every HANDOFF line making a strong negative claim
that links a doc containing retraction language. First run: found the Q8
row, plus one benign false positive (Q3 links a doc whose retraction is
about a sprite count, not about the tie-break -- checked, and HANDOFF
repeats none of the retracted figures). The lint also caught its own bug
first: it reported existing docs as missing because it joined a guessed
repo root, so it now resolves links relative to the file as markdown does.

Separately, EXTRAS's paint-order risk narrows twice more. Of its 15 tied
pairs only 2 overlap, and of those, ptloop01 x ptloop02 are loop*
animations compose skips by default -- so exactly ONE tie can be drawn:
ptframe3 x ptframe4, overlapping 102x132 px. Against live-extras.png that
contested region correlates +0.9622, better than the whole frame (+0.9440)
and inside the range of regions where order cannot matter (+0.8502 /
+0.9903). Consistent with our order, not proof: correlation cannot see a
swap between locally similar art.

15 -> 2 -> 1 -> consistent is now the whole paint-order risk on the five
screens, and HANDOFF says so.

docs/re/structures/ui-paint-order-derived-check.md

@@ -126,3 +126,44 @@ So Q3 resolves as: the layer key is ✅ **decoded** and orders 4 of the 5 measur
 bundles exactly; the **tie-break within a key is ❔ undecodable**, and a consumer
 must either use a measured order or accept declaration index as an arbitrary
 stand-in.
+
+---
+
+## ✅ `EXTRAS`'s exposure narrows to ONE pair — and the capture is consistent with it
+
+The 15 tied pairs on `EXTRAS` reduce twice.
+
+**2 of the 15 overlap** (only an overlapping tie can paint differently):
+
+```
+[0]  ptframe3.t32  x  [1]  ptframe4.t32   key 32848  overlap 102x132
+[14] ptloop01.rat  x  [15] ptloop02.rat   key 32784  overlap 400x180
+```
+
+**1 of those 2 can be drawn.** `ptloop01`/`ptloop02` are `loop*` sprite
+animations, which `compose` skips unless `--animated` is passed, so their tie is
+unreachable in a default render. The real exposure is `ptframe3` × `ptframe4`,
+overlapping **102 × 132 px** at x 584–686, y 318–450.
+
+### The capture is consistent with our order
+
+Correlating our render against
+[`live-extras.png`](../captures/title-builds/live-extras.png):
+
+| region | correlation |
+|---|---|
+| **the contested overlap** (x 584–686, y 318–450) | **+0.9622** |
+| `ptframe3` alone, outside the overlap | +0.8502 |
+| `ptframe4` alone, outside the overlap | +0.9903 |
+| whole frame | +0.9440 |
+
+The contested region matches **better than the frame as a whole** and sits inside
+the range of regions where order *cannot* matter. Were our tie-break wrong, that
+region should correlate worse than its neighbours.
+
+🟡 **Consistent with, not proof.** Correlation cannot see a swap if the two
+frames happen to be locally similar. But it is a real check, and it removes the
+"entirely unverified" character of the one tie the port can actually hit.
+
+**So the chain is: 15 tied pairs → 2 overlapping → 1 drawable → consistent with
+the capture.** That is the whole paint-order risk on the port's five screens.