port: check their .prm correction against my renderer, and run their technique here

They found the aside 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.

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, so untextured primitives are painted rather
than skipped. The splashes' RMSE of 2.17 and 3.05 against real captures is the
corroboration -- skipping the backdrop would not survive that comparison.

Their technique was to grep for generalising phrases 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' or 'has always', temporal and about my own code's
history. Zero instances of their pattern.

The reason is an asymmetry 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 beside a checked claim about
the port. Swept for that instead -- 5 candidates, 0 real. Three are artefacts of a
narrow window with the citation elsewhere in the same why, and two are cautions
against the very claim. Reported as candidates-judged rather than as a count,
since an audit that invents defects is worse than none and a 5-of-5 false-positive
rate left as a number is exactly that.

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.

And the incentive they named, recorded plainly: 37 of the 63 remain unsupported
rather than refuted, and neither agent has any reason to go back and check them
now that the interesting half is settled. The bound is recorded and the reason it
will stay unresolved is not difficulty -- it is that nothing rewards closing it.
Worth writing at the moment of noticing, because the next reader will find a
carefully-bounded claim and no way to tell whether the bound was respected or
merely convenient.

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 -->
 
-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)
 
 <!-- /INDEX -->
 ## 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.