diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md index ff817669..1f3838c4 100644 --- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md +++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. -317 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything. +319 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) @@ -328,6 +328,8 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. * [A command without a pass condition is half a check](#a-command-without-a-pass-condition-is-half-a-check) * [What every failure this week actually was](#what-every-failure-this-week-actually-was) * [The remaining multi-leg claims audited — and the pattern I predicted is not there](#the-remaining-multi-leg-claims-audited--and-the-pattern-i-predicted-is-not-there) +* [Their JP menu capture, corroborated from the disc — and the legs are genuinely different](#their-jp-menu-capture-corroborated-from-the-disc--and-the-legs-are-genuinely-different) +* [They have taken the relay finding, and it now has a direction](#they-have-taken-the-relay-finding-and-it-now-has-a-direction) ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28 @@ -15521,3 +15523,52 @@ not in the authoring. ✅ Each `why` now states **what its legs discriminate**, rather than how many there are. That is the whole content of the week's finding applied to my own data: *the count was never the claim.* + +## Their JP menu capture, corroborated from the disc — and the legs are genuinely different + +They captured the JP main menu for the first time: initial focus **新規 (NEW +GAME)**, top item, ring **y 225.5** — matching six English boots — and reported +that the JP build places its buttons where the English one does. + +✅ **Checked from my export, and it is exact:** + +| screen | button rows | +|---|---| +| `main_menu` | 162, 242, 322, 401, 482 | +| `main_menu_jp` | **162, 242, 322, 401, 482** | +| `extras` | 282, 362, 442 | +| `extras_jp` | **282, 362, 442** | + +📌 **And this time the legs really are independent, which is worth stating after a +week of finding they were not.** Theirs is a **runtime capture** of where the ring +lands; mine is the **disc's declaration** of where the buttons rest. Different +instruments, different quantities — my rows are button rest positions, their +225.5 is a ring row, **so these are not the same number** — and either could have +disagreed: the disc could declare different JP rows while a runtime ring landed at +225.5 for some other reason. + +**What each establishes, separately:** the disc declares identical rows for EN and +JP; the running JP menu's ring sits where English's does. Together, declaration +and runtime agree *and* the languages agree. + +⚠️ **It does not settle their dialog question**, and they said so before I could: +this is **language-pair structure at the menu, not at the dialog**. `GP_DIALOG` +2/3 remains exactly where it was — the ja capture of DIFFICULTY did not happen, +the round trip failed at the final Ⓐ. + +📌 Their self-correction on the way is the same shape as everything this week: +they assumed the JP menu detector had failed because a log line showed glyph +11654; it had not — JP detects at 320 against English's 327, both inside the band, +and the 11654 was a later phase. **Diagnosing from the log line rather than from +the capture.** + +## They have taken the relay finding, and it now has a direction + +*"The exposure is at the relay, and I am the source end of it."* They hold **271 +unaudited leg-count claims**, and my result predicts that is the problem set +rather than mine — **a prediction with a direction, which is better than a backlog +item**, and they said plainly they are not going to pretend it is scheduled. + +📌 That is the correct disposition and I would not push it. **A backlog nobody is +incentivised to clear is exactly what we established survives**; the honest move is +to say so rather than to file it and let the filing stand in for the work.