re: eight refutations from this session had never reached REFUTED.md

sylpheed-port audited the documents their brief names and found two stale
blockers in a table they are instructed to consult, having audited everything
else. Mine names eight documents; I had audited MISSION.md and never PROTOCOL,
REFUTED, INDEX or CONTAINER-NOTES.

REFUTED.md is the dangerous one, because a wrongly-dead entry stops someone
re-investigating something live. Checked the keyframe cluster first for the
opposite failure -- entries refuted USING the stale time association, which would
make their deaths unsound. They are sound: the additive-blend and pivot entries
rest on scale values and capture measurements that the association does not move,
and the one entry that did depend on it is already struck through.

The real gap is the other direction. EIGHT claims died this session -- the
fade-out duration "not in the file", the ~14 units as a black hold, the black
interval as a load, "(B) has no black interval", ptloop01/02 not free-running,
the splash dwells running 8.5 % long, EXTRAS's "structural" n=1, and the gap being
determined by the outgoing screen. Every one was recorded in its own page at the
time. NONE of them reached REFUTED.md, the file the brief says to grep before
proposing anything.

Added as a dated section with the true answer after each arrow, following the
file's stated format, and each carrying what made it wrong rather than only that
it was.

METHOD: a refutation that lives only where it was made is not reachable by the
person about to repeat it. The pages are where a refutation is argued; the index
is where it is found -- the same split as docs versus tool, and only the second
one saves anyone. The check is mechanical: after withdrawing a claim, grep
REFUTED.md for its noun.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v

docs/re/REFUTED.md

@@ -672,3 +672,46 @@ neighbourhood, not just the line.
   it. The tell was that a screen transition, a button press and a plate fade all
   came out at ~20–25 s. → A backlog **preserves ordering and destroys
   durations**; check consumed-fps against requested-fps before quoting a time.
+
+## UI timing and transitions (2026-08-30)
+
+Seven claims died this session. Each was recorded in its own page at the time,
+and **none of them reached this file** — which is the one the brief says to grep
+before proposing anything. A refutation that lives only where it was made is not
+reachable by the person about to repeat it.
+
+* "the fade-OUT duration is not in the file — the port must author it" → **mine,
+  and wrong in every sentence.** The [record-layout
+  fix](ui-keyframe-record-layout.md) times a group's final pose, so block 4
+  carries `t = 80` / `74` / `269`: the ramp is **decoded** at 10 / 10 / 8 units.
+  The section asserting this stood 78 lines above its own correction, in a
+  heading, telling the port to author a decoded value.
+  [`screen-transitions.md`](screen-transitions.md)
+* "the ~14 units the fade-out does not account for are a black HOLD" → **mine,
+  arithmetic that fit.** Measured: the content elements' own fade-outs, starting
+  six frames before the quad's ramp. [`screen-transitions.md`](screen-transitions.md)
+* "the black interval between screens is a LOAD" → **mine, refuted three ways.**
+  Bundle size runs backwards (the 12.3 MB screen gaps 0, the 7.0 MB one gaps 3);
+  the gap is 3 frames in three independent runs; and press-to-change latency moved
+  ~12 frames between those runs while the gap did not move at all.
+  [`screen-transitions.md`](screen-transitions.md)
+* "Ⓑ has no black interval" → **mine, one screen pair generalised.** `EXTRAS → menu`
+  via Ⓑ gives **two completely empty frames**. [`screen-transitions.md`](screen-transitions.md)
+* "`ptloop01`/`ptloop02` do not free-run on the settled title" → **mine, measured
+  over the wrong rectangle.** The parent's `(441,270)` 200×90 is a **pivot anchor**;
+  the leaf sweeps a 400 px quad whose left edge travels −639…1521. The zero was
+  measured in a dead zone. [`structures/ui-resting-pose.md`](structures/ui-resting-pose.md)
+* "the game runs the splash dwells ~8.5 % long" → **mine, and it was one element's
+  visible span read as the screen's.** The `_eff` glow is lit from t≈0 while the
+  logo is still transparent, so the screen's visible span is the full group. Six
+  ratios recomputed to a mean of 1.0146 with one below unity.
+  [`boot-order-and-splash-dwell.md`](boot-order-and-splash-dwell.md)
+* "`EXTRAS` can supply only one transition measurement — a **structural** limit"
+  → **mine, and refuted by one `screen info`.** Build 6 declares three buttons
+  (`ptbtn11/12/13`, kind `0x3002`). ⚠️ `sylpheed-port` had copied this sentence out
+  of a message into their own record as an established fact **while holding the
+  file that refuted it**. [`data/fade-four-transitions.txt`](data/fade-four-transitions.txt)
+* "the black gap is determined by the OUTGOING screen" → **mine, superseded
+  twice.** The same origin gives 0 and 1 to different destinations; every repeated
+  *pair* is identical across five replicates. The pair determines; the origin only
+  constrains. [`data/fade-four-transitions.txt`](data/fade-four-transitions.txt)