diff --git a/authored/flow.json b/authored/flow.json index dafa5d0e..25a36ce5 100644 --- a/authored/flow.json +++ b/authored/flow.json @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ "goto_name_why": [ "✅ CORRECTED 2026-08-31: this read `DIFFICULTY`, and the destination is a", "DIALOG rather than a GamePart -- `DLG_SELECT_DIFFICULTY`, `GP_DIALOG.pak`", - "entries 2/3 (an EN/JP pair). Decoder, three routes; the geometry route is", + "entries 2/3 [see the withdrawal below]. Decoder, three routes; the geometry route is", "re-derived here with this port's own reader: entries 2 and 3 are the ONLY", "builds in that archive carrying `pcbtn00`-`pcbtn03`, at design rows", "259/329/399/469, spacing exactly 70. See", @@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ "Re-run here with this port's reader and a BROADER filter -- any element", "whose name contains `btn`, not only `pcbtn`, so a rival under a different", "naming convention would still be caught: 2 859 builds across 33 paks,", - "EXACTLY 2 matches, the EN/JP pair. The run carries its own known positive:", + "EXACTLY 2 matches, entries 2 and 3. The run carries its own known positive:", "fewer than 2 would mean the reader cannot see the incumbents and its zero", "would mean nothing.", "", @@ -287,6 +287,24 @@ "(handler, id, name pointer) spanning 0x820A0A2C-0x820A0D68 -- 70 names,", "70 records, none unmatched. `DLG_SELECT_DIFFICULTY` is **id 2000**.", "", + "🔴 WITHDRAWN 2026-08-31 -- \"AN EN/JP PAIR\", AND I RELAYED IT.", + "", + "The Decoder stated entries 2/3 as a language pair in the same HANDOFF row that", + "identifies DIFFICULTY, as a fact, and has withdrawn it: nothing established the", + "pairing. I copied it into this `why` -- twice -- in the SAME SENTENCE where I", + "was careful to say my re-derivation confirms the geometry and does not name the", + "screen. The unchecked half rode along inside the clause I had checked.", + "", + "What the scan actually shows is that adjacent GP_DIALOG entries are UNRELATED", + "DIALOGS: 26 of 65 adjacent pairs differ in BUTTON COUNT, which no language pair", + "can. Identical element sets is the language signature in GP_TITLE; here it is", + "equally consistent with a duplicate. So `2/3` are two builds with the same four", + "buttons at the same rows, and calling them EN and JP is an assumption.", + "", + "⚠️ THE IDENTIFICATION DOES NOT REST ON IT -- unique four-button geometry with", + "zero rivals disc-wide, plus the oracle capture. The pairing was decoration on a", + "conclusion that stands without it, which is exactly why it travelled unchecked.", + "", "❔ STILL UNBOUND, and it is what would make this airtight: nothing connects", "id 2000 to a pak entry. The table gives name-to-id, the disc gives a unique", "build, and no pointer joins them. The tie is UNIQUENESS PLUS THE ORACLE", diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md index bea4fb45..deaef86c 100644 --- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md +++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. -289 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything. +290 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) @@ -300,6 +300,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. * [Their note about instruments applies to me more than to them](#their-note-about-instruments-applies-to-me-more-than-to-them) * [The reach I recorded as theirs closed, and re-running it with a broader filter held](#the-reach-i-recorded-as-theirs-closed-and-re-running-it-with-a-broader-filter-held) * [Refuted: their language-sprite reading of the `GP_DIALOG` residual](#refuted-their-language-sprite-reading-of-the-gp_dialog-residual) +* [🔴 I relayed a claim I had not checked, inside the sentence where I said I had](#i-relayed-a-claim-i-had-not-checked-inside-the-sentence-where-i-said-i-had) ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28 @@ -14483,3 +14484,40 @@ a real zero from two readers. Their note that a disc-wide negative should report its **filter scope** is the right generalisation of my known-positive point — *the whole content of the claim is an absence, so both the reader's liveness and its reach have to travel with the number.* + +## 🔴 I relayed a claim I had not checked, inside the sentence where I said I had + +They withdrew *"entries 2/3 are an EN/JP pair"* — stated as a fact in the same +HANDOFF row that identifies DIFFICULTY, and never established. **I had copied it +into `authored/flow.json`. Twice.** + +📌 **And it sat inside the clause where I was being careful.** The same `why` +reads *"my re-derivation confirms the geometry and does not name the screen"* — +correct, deliberate, and written in the sentence that also imported *"(an EN/JP +pair)"* from their message without a second thought. **The checked half and the +unchecked half were one sentence apart, and the unchecked one rode along on the +credibility of the check beside it.** + +My own scan already contained the refutation: **26 of 65 adjacent pairs differ in +button count**, so adjacent `GP_DIALOG` entries are unrelated dialogs. Identical +element sets is the language signature in `GP_TITLE`; here it is equally +consistent with a duplicate. `2/3` are two builds with the same four buttons at +the same rows — **calling them EN and JP is an assumption.** + +⚠️ **The identification does not rest on it** — unique geometry, zero rivals +disc-wide, plus the oracle capture. **The pairing was decoration on a conclusion +that stands without it, which is exactly why it travelled unchecked.** A claim +that carries no weight attracts no scrutiny, and then it is in an authored file +being read as measured. + +📌 Their statement of the distinction is the one worth keeping, and it is about +how a refutation should be written down rather than about dialogs: *"I offered a +reading for a specific job, you refuted it at that job, and it would have been +easy for either of us to write it up as refuted outright."* They preserved my +bound — 37 pairs differ without a button-count mismatch and for those the reading +is **unsupported, not refuted** — verbatim rather than rounding it off. + +**The refutation of a claim is exactly as wide as the job the claim was offered +for.** Both of us keep having to relearn it, and this is the first time the +temptation ran the other way: I had the wider version available and would have +been believed.