re(ui): withdraw the mechanism -- "palette" was an explanation, not a finding

Last iteration I wrote that a bundle is a palette whose elements are
selectively activated. The disjoint glow/logo phases have two
explanations and I asserted one:

  1. one bundle, some elements run then others;
  2. two bundle-loads shown in sequence (entries 11 and 14 are twins
     declaring identical sprites).

The draw log's tex[base=...] looked like it would separate them. It does
not, and the control is in the same table:

  publisher splash  f1-90     0x11C30000, 0x10000000
  glows             f94-115   0x11C30000, 0x10000000
  logos             f116-211  0x11C30000, 0x10000000

The publisher splash is certainly a DIFFERENT bundle from the developer
splash, and it uses the same base. So 0x11C30000 is a reused upload slot,
not a bundle identity, and the test cannot choose between the two
hypotheses.

Survives: a bundle's declared elements are not what gets drawn.
palogo_anima and palogo_gamearts carry byte-identical keyframe times and
in the same run one is drawn 95 frames and the other none -- and
whichever twin was active declares both. The phases are strictly disjoint
(0 overlapping frames in 235).

Withdrawn: the mechanism. The practical consequence is unchanged --
compositing every element of a bundle does not reproduce what the game
shows over time -- but the why is not established and I stated it as
though it were.

What would separate them: a per-draw capture recording the bundle each
draw came from, or a file-IO log showing whether a second RATC entry is
read between frames 115 and 116.

METHOD: a shared resource address does not identify the resource's owner;
and state the mechanism as a separate claim from the observation, or the
weaker one inherits the stronger one's evidence.

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -808,3 +808,14 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   frames and the other not at all. No amount of re-reading the placement data can
   explain that, and the pair is worth more than a survey — when a hypothesis says
   "the data decides", look for two records that agree and behave differently.
+* **A shared resource address does not identify the resource's owner.** The draw
+  log's `tex[base=…]` looked like it would say whether two animation phases came
+  from the same bundle. All three splash phases report `0x11C30000` — including
+  the publisher splash, which is certainly a *different* bundle. The address is a
+  reused upload slot. The control was free and sitting in the same table; without
+  it the shared base would have read as proof of a shared bundle.
+* **State the mechanism as a separate claim from the observation.** "Declared
+  elements are not what gets drawn" is measured and holds. "Because one bundle
+  activates its elements selectively" was an explanation I attached to it, and it
+  is not established. Bundling the two let the weaker claim inherit the stronger
+  one's evidence.