diff --git a/docs/port/BLOCKED.md b/docs/port/BLOCKED.md index 258bd21f..1c8e4762 100644 --- a/docs/port/BLOCKED.md +++ b/docs/port/BLOCKED.md @@ -409,30 +409,22 @@ upright — say so and it can be closed without a capture. --- -## Whose span is the opaque span? — 256 against 211 on `palogo_eff0` +## ~~Whose span is the opaque span?~~ — ✅ answered, and it was never a disagreement -*Derived from HANDOFF `9ca1eb5`. Decoder claim: the forced-backdrop rule.* +*Derived from HANDOFF `9ca1eb5`. Closed 2026-08-29 by the Decoder.* -The rule is implemented and both of its controls reproduce (`docs/port/DECISIONS.md`). -One number does not: the Decoder measures `palogo_eff0.prm` opaque for **211 -instants**, we get **256**. +**Both numbers were right, and both were mine.** `palogo_eff0.prm` is on *both* +splashes: publisher (entries 10, 13) runs to t=255 → **256** instants, developer +(11, 14) to t=210 → **211**. I filed a disagreement by comparing one of my two +numbers to one of theirs without checking the other row of my own census table, +which had 211 in it. 🔴 **A per-screen quantity needs its screen named beside it** +— this row named neither, and that is the whole defect. -`pteff00.prm` matches them **exactly** at 2, so the alpha ramp and the -instant-counting agree; the disagreement is only in where the span **ends**. We -run it to the *screen's* last keyframe (255 on `publisher_logo`); 211 implies -they stop at 210. +The convention is confirmed as the port already implemented it: span is +`0 ..= max keyframe over every element in the build`, and **an element holds its +final pose**. Not a convenience — the header's `+0x08` never falls short of the +last keyframe, and `+0x08` and the elements' maximum are interchangeable disc-wide. -⚠️ It changes no verdict — `palogo_eff0` declares a single opaque keyframe and is -opaque across either span, so it is forced first both ways, which is what both of -us concluded. It is filed because **the two spans are not the same span and only -one of them is the screen's**, and the rule's other half ("the elements visible -during its opaque span are *all* of them") is a quantifier over exactly that -interval. A span that is 18 % short can only make the rule fire *less* often, so -nothing currently drawn is at risk — but the next element it decides will be -decided on the wrong interval. - -What would settle it: which value the Decoder takes as the end of a screen's -timeline, and whether an element that stops emitting keyframes is treated as -**holding its final pose** or as **gone**. The port assumes it holds, and -`build_12` renders constant from t=30 to t=60 with the timeline running, which is -consistent with holding but is our renderer, not the game. +⚠️ The hold is load-bearing: dropping it changes **72 of 130** verdicts (55 %), +and `palogo_eff0` — one keyframe, opaque for one instant — is called *free* +without it, against a measured order. See `DECISIONS.md`. diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md index a90c42e7..abe35f0e 100644 --- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md +++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md @@ -5035,3 +5035,76 @@ the explanation, and whatever it is differs per screen. calls constrained-but-not-forced, and whether alpha-over is the blend mode. Both are the Decoder's to settle. It tests completeness within one archive, which is the half I can reach. + +## The 256/211 was never a disagreement — and my own census had already said so + +The Decoder answered the span question, and the answer is that **both numbers are +right**. `palogo_eff0.prm` appears on *both* splashes: the publisher pair +(entries 10, 13) runs to t=255 and gives **256** instants, the developer pair +(11, 14) runs to t=210 and gives **211**. I computed the publisher; their page +quoted the developer. + +Worth noting how that came out, because it is the one part I can claim: the +refutation census in the section above reported **256 on `publisher_logo` and 211 +on `developer_logos`, in the same table**, and concluded *"the disagreement is not +a constant offset, so 'they stop 45 instants early' is not the explanation"*. The +resolution was already sitting in my own output before their reply arrived. What +I got wrong was **filing it as a disagreement at all** — I compared one of my two +numbers against one of theirs and did not check the other row of my own table +against it. A per-screen quantity needs the screen named next to it, and my +`BLOCKED.md` row named neither. + +### The span convention, confirmed rather than assumed + +> The span is `0 ..= max keyframe time over EVERY element in the build`, and an +> element **holds its final pose** past its own last keyframe. + +That is exactly what `forced_backdrop_first` implements, so nothing changes in +the port. Two things they add that are worth having in writing: + +* the hold **is not a convenience**: a group holds at its last keyframe rather + than looping, and the header's `+0x08` never falls short of the last keyframe — + the slack *is* that hold; +* `+0x08` and the elements' maximum are **interchangeable**, zero disagreements + disc-wide. We use the elements' maximum. It stays, and this paragraph is the + note that the two were *checked* equivalent rather than assumed so. + +### The hold decides 55 % of verdicts, and the oracle picks it + +Reported by them over 130 keyless full-screen primitives (their measurement, not +reproduced here — their page is `docs/re/structures/ui-forced-backdrop.md`, ⚠️ not +yet on `main` as of this commit): + +| alternative convention | verdicts changed | +|---|---| +| span = the header's declared `+0x08` | 0 | +| span = the primitive's own last keyframe | **72** | +| elements **gone** after their last keyframe | **72** | + +So the reading I very nearly shipped — span = the element's own last keyframe — +would have changed **55 %** of the verdicts disc-wide. My first implementation +did exactly that, and `palogo_eff0` is the case that catches it: a *single* +keyframe at t=0, opaque for one instant, nothing else up yet, so the rule calls +it **free** — against a game measured painting it first. The convention is not a +matter of taste; the oracle rules one out. + +✅ None of our six verdicts rests on it. `pgloading_eff00` is first under all four +conventions and `pteff00` is free under all four; only `palogo_eff0` moves, and +only under the convention its own measured order excludes. + +### The sharper form of the `verify-screen` failure + +Theirs, and it is better than how I wrote it: those two solid-black frames +**were not two witnesses**. Both renderers read `implied_layer_key`, so their +agreement carried *no information* — a correlated failure is indistinguishable +from a confirmation. What caught it was not a second opinion but that the agreed +answer was **impossible on its face**. *"Is this result even possible?"* beats +*"do two implementations agree?"* whenever the two share an ancestor, and in this +project they nearly always do. + +### The boot gate still holds + +Re-run after the reorder, since the rule changed the paint order of the first two +screens in the boot path: `publisher_logo` → `developer_logos` → `ADV` (skipped at +8.12 s) → `title` + `press_start` overlay, plate at full alpha at t=236, complete +at 10.83 s holding on the title. No script errors.