fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

port: a second capture closes the sweep-geometry question; title+plate matches at 0.00093%

Browse Source 
live-title-press-a.png was unused in the corpus. Posed at t=237 -- inside the
plate's 8-unit window -- the port matches it at 0.00093%, against 0.0124% for
the no-plate capture at leaf phase ~400. Two captures, two different phases,
both under 0.013%: a systematic sweep-geometry error would leave a floor in
both, so last iteration's caveat is closed.

Sweeping the whole screen's instant against capture 1 gives at best 0.148% at
t=230 -- 10x worse than the leaf-only fit. So that capture is the screen SETTLED
with the sweeps still looping, which is the first independent evidence for the
authored loop_leaf decision.

Fixes the cause of a flat 1% floor: --screen=X --overlay=Y pushed the raw
elapsed clock into the overlay (9 units at capture), so press_start drew nothing
-- the flag whose purpose is 'put the plate on the title'. A static overlay now
poses at its own arrival; the --boot shared clock is untouched.

Adds title_plate to verify-capture at 0.00%, the most sensitive row in it. Its
instant is FITTED and labelled as such.

Also records that I nearly committed a wrong cause for the overlay bug: I wrote
that nothing drives the overlay's clock outside a sequence. It is driven, every
frame, from view.time_units.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
This commit is contained in:
Sylpheed port agent
2026-08-30 01:16:57 +00:00
parent 9610662b82
commit a170e1fbc6
3 changed files with 116 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

74
docs/port/DECISIONS.md
View File

@@ -5980,3 +5980,77 @@ geometry error would produce at a wrong phase.
whatever they measured it on*. It says the phase that matches this capture is
~400. If those are the same quantity, one of the two is off by ~42 units; if they
are not, this is a second quantity nobody had.
## A second capture closes the sweep-geometry question, and the plate matches at 0.00093 %
Last iteration's leaf-phase fit came with a caveat I could not close: *a
systematic error in how the port draws the sweeps could be absorbed by shifting
the phase, and one capture cannot separate those.* A second capture can, and
`live-title-press-a.png` — the title **with** the plate — was sitting in the
corpus unused.
### The second capture fits at a different phase, and better
| capture | pose | differing |
|---|---|---|
| `live-title-build4-no-plate.png` | settled, leaf at ~400 units | **0.0124 %** |
| `live-title-press-a.png` | t=237, everything | **0.00093 %** |
**Two independent captures, two different sweep phases, both fitting to 0.01 % or
better.** A geometry error in how the sweeps are drawn would leave a floor in
*both*, and at a phase-independent level. Neither has one. ✅ The caveat is closed
and the port's sweep rendering is not systematically wrong.
The two phases are also consistent with each other rather than merely different:
the plate is opaque only at t=236–238, so a frame containing it is early
(t≈237) and a frame without it is either earlier or later. The no-plate capture
fits at leaf ~400 — 6.7 s in, well past the plate's window — and its filename
says it is build 4 alone. Both readings agree on where each frame sits.
⚠️ I nearly drew a further inference — that the no-plate capture *dates* the
plate's disappearance and therefore answers the BLOCKED question about whether
the plate stays up. It does not: the filename says `build4-no-plate`, so the
capture was taken **of build 4 alone, deliberately without the overlay**. It
carries no information about how long a plate lasts. That row stays open.
### Capture 1 is not a whole-screen instant, which corroborates `loop_leaf`
Sweeping the *whole screen's* time against the no-plate capture, the best is
**0.1483 % at t=230**, degrading sharply past 240 as the group fades out — an
order of magnitude worse than the leaf-only fit's 0.0124 % at phase ~400, which
the main timeline cannot reach without fading everything.
So that capture is **not** "the screen at instant t". It is the screen **settled**
with the sweeps **still looping** — which is exactly what `authored/rendering.json`'s
`loop_leaf_on_screens: ["title"]` models. That decision was authored from the
leaf's zero slack; this is the first independent evidence for it.
### 🔴 The 1 % floor was the plate not being drawn at all
Before any of that, every sweep phase against capture 2 gave a flat ~1.0 %, with
the residual a row of glyph-sized blobs on the plate's own position.
`--screen=X --overlay=Y` pushed the **raw elapsed clock** into the overlay — 9
units at the moment `--capture` fires. `press_start` is transparent until t=214.
So the one flag whose entire purpose is *put the plate on the title* drew nothing
and reported `drew 0`, and the frame read as a title with no plate.
A static overlay now poses at **its own arrival**. The `--boot` path is untouched:
there the shared clock is the finding — the 120 units between build 4's last ramp
and the plate's `a=255` is a fixed interval on one timeline.
⚠️ My first patch for this was wrong and I nearly committed the comment for it:
I wrote that *"nothing outside a boot sequence drives the overlay's clock"*. It is
driven — from `view.time_units`, every frame. The symptom was identical either
way, and only re-reading the log after the fix failed showed the cause was the
opposite of what I had written down.
### The new row
`title_plate` joins `verify-capture` at **0.00%** — two orders below every other
row, which makes it the most sensitive regression detector in the harness.
⚠️ Its instant is **fitted, not measured**. t=237 is where this capture's content
places it, found by sweeping. Choosing which frame to compare against is what
every row here does, but the 0.00093 % is a floor for *that pose*, not a general
statement of accuracy.

23
port/scripts/boot.gd
View File

@@ -1002,7 +1002,28 @@ func _overlay_process(delta: float) -> void:
# apart by a frame here and there, and the whole content of the finding
# is that the 120 units between build 4's last ramp and the plate's
# `a=255` is a fixed interval on a shared timeline.
overlay.time_units = view.time_units
# 🔴 A STATIC overlay poses at ITS OWN ARRIVAL, not at the shared clock.
#
# `--screen=X --overlay=Y` has no sequence driving it, so `view` sits at
# its settle instant while this line pushed the *raw elapsed* clock into
# the overlay -- 9 units at the moment `--capture` fires. For
# `press_start` that is alpha 0 (transparent until t=214, opaque only at
# t=236-238), so the one flag whose purpose is "put the plate on the
# title" drew NOTHING and reported `drew 0`. It read as a title with no
# plate, which is what anyone would conclude.
#
# It cost a measurement: against `live-title-press-a.png` every sweep
# phase gave a flat ~1.0 % floor, and the residual was a row of
# glyph-sized blobs on the plate's own position. Posed properly the same
# comparison is 0.00093 %.
#
# In a `--boot` sequence the shared clock is the whole point -- the 120
# units between build 4's last ramp and the plate's a=255 is a fixed
# interval on ONE timeline -- so that path is untouched.
if _sequence.is_empty():
overlay.time_units = overlay.settle_time()
else:
overlay.time_units = view.time_units
overlay.queue_redraw()
if _overlay_quit_at >= 0.0 and _elapsed >= _overlay_quit_at:
print("boot ends on %s + %s at %.2f s"

20
tools/port/verify-capture
View File

@@ -75,6 +75,23 @@ MAP=(
# against 1.82 % here. Picking that one would be fitting the pose to the
# score, which is the thing this harness exists not to do.
"title:$CAPS/live-title-build4-no-plate.png:t357"
# A SECOND title comparison, and the most sensitive row this tool has.
#
# `live-title-press-a.png` is the title WITH the plate. Posed at t=237 -- inside
# the plate's own 8-unit opaque window, t=236-238 -- the port matches it at
# **0.00093 %**, two orders below every other row. That makes it the best
# regression detector here: anything structural that moves will show.
#
# ⚠️ The instant is FITTED, not measured: 237 is where this capture's content
# places it, found by sweeping. That is legitimate for choosing which frame to
# compare against -- every row does it -- but it is not a claim about the game,
# and the 0.00093 % is therefore a floor for THIS pose, not a general accuracy.
#
# It also closes the systematic-error question the leaf sweep left open. Two
# independent captures fit at two DIFFERENT phases -- this one at 237, the
# no-plate one at ~400 -- and both to 0.01 % or better. A geometry error in how
# the sweeps are drawn would leave a floor in both. Neither has one.
"title_plate:$CAPS/live-title-press-a.png:plate"
"publisher_logo:$CAPS/live-splash-publisher.png:screen"
"developer_logos:$CAPS/live-splash-developer.png:screen"
)
@@ -94,6 +111,9 @@ for row in "${MAP[@]}"; do
godot --path port --resolution 1280x720 -- "--menu=$name" --script=wait \
"--shots=$OUT/$name" >"$OUT/$name.log" 2>&1 || true
[ -f "$OUT/${name}_00_start.png" ] && cp "$OUT/${name}_00_start.png" "$OUT/$name.render.png"
elif [ "$pose" = plate ]; then
godot --path port --resolution 1280x720 -- "--screen=title" --overlay=press_start \
--time=3.95 "--capture=$OUT/$name.render.png" >"$OUT/$name.log" 2>&1 || true
elif [ "$pose" = t357 ]; then
# 🔴 NO `--time` HERE EITHER, and the row's note used to claim otherwise.
#