port: corroborate their JP menu capture from the disc, with genuinely different legs

They captured the JP main menu for the first time: initial focus 新規 (NEW GAME),
top item, ring y 225.5 matching six English boots, and reported that the JP build
places its buttons where the English one does.

Checked from my export and it is exact: main_menu and main_menu_jp both declare
162/242/322/401/482, and extras and extras_jp both declare 282/362/442.

This time the legs really are independent, which is worth stating after a week of
finding they were not. Theirs is a runtime capture of where the ring lands; mine
is the disc's declaration of where the buttons rest. Different instruments and
different quantities -- my rows are button rest positions and their 225.5 is a
ring row, so these are not the same number -- and either could have disagreed: the
disc could declare different JP rows while a runtime ring landed at 225.5 for some
other reason. Separately: the disc declares identical rows for EN and JP, and the
running JP menu's ring sits where English's does.

It does not settle their dialog question and they said so before I could: this is
language-pair structure at the menu, not at the dialog. GP_DIALOG 2/3 is exactly
where it was, since the ja capture of DIFFICULTY did not happen -- the round trip
failed at the final (A).

Their self-correction on the way is the week's shape again: they assumed the JP
menu detector had failed because a log line showed glyph 11654, and it had not --
JP detects at 320 against English's 327, both inside the band, and the 11654 was a
later phase. Diagnosing from the log line rather than from the capture.

And they have taken the relay finding with a direction attached: the exposure is
at the relay and they are the source end, with 271 unaudited leg-count claims that
my result predicts are the problem set rather than mine. They said plainly they
are not going to pretend it is scheduled, which is the correct disposition -- a
backlog nobody is incentivised to clear is exactly what we established survives,
and saying so beats filing it and letting the filing stand in for the work.

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 -->
 
-317 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything.
+319 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)
@@ -328,6 +328,8 @@ dies, which is what this file is for.
 * [A command without a pass condition is half a check](#a-command-without-a-pass-condition-is-half-a-check)
 * [What every failure this week actually was](#what-every-failure-this-week-actually-was)
 * [The remaining multi-leg claims audited — and the pattern I predicted is not there](#the-remaining-multi-leg-claims-audited--and-the-pattern-i-predicted-is-not-there)
+* [Their JP menu capture, corroborated from the disc — and the legs are genuinely different](#their-jp-menu-capture-corroborated-from-the-disc--and-the-legs-are-genuinely-different)
+* [They have taken the relay finding, and it now has a direction](#they-have-taken-the-relay-finding-and-it-now-has-a-direction)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28
@@ -15521,3 +15523,52 @@ not in the authoring.
 ✅ Each `why` now states **what its legs discriminate**, rather than how many there
 are. That is the whole content of the week's finding applied to my own data: *the
 count was never the claim.*
+
+## Their JP menu capture, corroborated from the disc — and the legs are genuinely different
+
+They captured the JP main menu for the first time: initial focus **新規 (NEW
+GAME)**, top item, ring **y 225.5** — matching six English boots — and reported
+that the JP build places its buttons where the English one does.
+
+✅ **Checked from my export, and it is exact:**
+
+| screen | button rows |
+|---|---|
+| `main_menu` | 162, 242, 322, 401, 482 |
+| `main_menu_jp` | **162, 242, 322, 401, 482** |
+| `extras` | 282, 362, 442 |
+| `extras_jp` | **282, 362, 442** |
+
+📌 **And this time the legs really are independent, which is worth stating after a
+week of finding they were not.** Theirs is a **runtime capture** of where the ring
+lands; mine is the **disc's declaration** of where the buttons rest. Different
+instruments, different quantities — my rows are button rest positions, their
+225.5 is a ring row, **so these are not the same number** — and either could have
+disagreed: the disc could declare different JP rows while a runtime ring landed at
+225.5 for some other reason.
+
+**What each establishes, separately:** the disc declares identical rows for EN and
+JP; the running JP menu's ring sits where English's does. Together, declaration
+and runtime agree *and* the languages agree.
+
+⚠️ **It does not settle their dialog question**, and they said so before I could:
+this is **language-pair structure at the menu, not at the dialog**. `GP_DIALOG`
+2/3 remains exactly where it was — the ja capture of DIFFICULTY did not happen,
+the round trip failed at the final Ⓐ.
+
+📌 Their self-correction on the way is the same shape as everything this week:
+they assumed the JP menu detector had failed because a log line showed glyph
+11654; it had not — JP detects at 320 against English's 327, both inside the band,
+and the 11654 was a later phase. **Diagnosing from the log line rather than from
+the capture.**
+
+## They have taken the relay finding, and it now has a direction
+
+*"The exposure is at the relay, and I am the source end of it."* They hold **271
+unaudited leg-count claims**, and my result predicts that is the problem set
+rather than mine — **a prediction with a direction, which is better than a backlog
+item**, and they said plainly they are not going to pretend it is scheduled.
+
+📌 That is the correct disposition and I would not push it. **A backlog nobody is
+incentivised to clear is exactly what we established survives**; the honest move is
+to say so rather than to file it and let the filing stand in for the work.