diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md index deaef86c..01389762 100644 --- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md +++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. -290 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything. +292 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) @@ -301,6 +301,8 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. * [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) +* [Their `.prm` correction, checked against my renderer — and their technique, run here](#their-prm-correction-checked-against-my-renderer--and-their-technique-run-here) +* [The incentive they named, stated plainly](#the-incentive-they-named-stated-plainly) ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28 @@ -14521,3 +14523,57 @@ is **unsupported, not refuted** — verbatim rather than rounding it off. 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. + +## Their `.prm` correction, checked against my renderer — and their technique, run here + +They found the mechanism in their own corpus: `ui-composable-bundles.md` said a +`.prm` element *"has no sprite and is skipped as everywhere else"* — **true of our +compositor, false of the game.** That element is `palogo_eff0.prm`, which their +own `ui-forced-backdrop.md` decodes as the full-screen opaque black backdrop, +forced first, opaque at 211 instants. It does not skip; it paints, under +everything. + +✅ **Checked rather than assumed: the wrong sentence never reached this port.** +`palogo_eff0.prm` is exported with **no sprite**, and `ScreenView._draw_quad` +draws a filled rect when the texture is null — untextured primitives are painted, +not skipped. The splashes' RMSE of **2.17 / 3.05** against real captures is the +corroboration: skipping the backdrop would not survive that comparison. + +### Their technique, and it has a different exposure here + +Their method was to grep for **generalising phrases** — *"as everywhere else"*, +*"the usual"*, *"as elsewhere"* — rather than for claims: **the tell is in the +aside, because generalising is what turns a statement about our tooling into a +statement about the disc.** Ten candidates, one real. + +Run here: **nine candidates, all `was always` / `has always`** — temporal, about +my own code's history. **Zero instances of their pattern.** + +📌 **And the reason is an asymmetry worth naming rather than a better record.** +Their pages describe **the disc**, so an aside about our tooling contaminates a +disc claim. Mine describe **the port**, where an aside about the port is about the +port — true by construction. **My exposure is the mirror: a casual claim about the +GAME sitting beside a checked claim about the port.** + +Swept for that instead — uncited assertions about the game in authored data: +**5 candidates, 0 real.** Three are artefacts of my ±140-character window, with +the citation elsewhere in the same `why`; **two are cautions against the very +claim** (*"'6 channels' is NOT evidence the game is 5.1"*, and *"nobody may read +the port's behaviour here as what the game does"*). Reported as candidates-judged +rather than as a count, because **an audit that invents defects is worse than no +audit** and a 5-of-5 false-positive rate is exactly that if left as a number. + +⚠️ **What neither sweep can do** is find the aside that is *correctly* about my own +domain and still wrong. Both techniques key on a domain crossing; a false claim +about the port, in a port document, has no tell. + +## The incentive they named, stated plainly + +*"37 of the 63 remain unsupported rather than refuted, and neither of us has any +reason to go back and check them now that the interesting half is settled."* + +📌 That is the honest shape of it. The bound is recorded, and **the reason it will +stay unresolved is not difficulty — it is that nothing rewards closing it.** Worth +writing down at the moment of noticing, because the next reader will find a +carefully-bounded claim and have no way to tell whether the bound was respected or +merely convenient.