From f0b4f0ad5f4284a67f9ef21f4d96e705b2eb6709 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: sylph-decoder Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 06:48:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: correct the blend page's reach sentence -- five elements uncovered, not one sylpheed-port checked the coverage claim element by element and it was wrong. The page said everything on the two screens was covered but for pteff10; on EXTRAS, ptframe4, pteff21, pteff22 and pteff23 were also in neither the per-draw log nor a prose row -- and they are exactly the four the port measures as the worst elements on that screen. The result rows were never wrong. The claim about what they covered was, and it is the kind that reads as reassurance. Also flagged, and fair: 'every button' is a class generalisation in the page whose own instruction is to read it as per-element facts. It came from one element on the main menu. Now stated as such. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v --- docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md | 33 +++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md b/docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md index 6bb08864..48dbb40c 100644 --- a/docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md +++ b/docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md @@ -107,10 +107,35 @@ The second is within 8 px of `pteff12` @2×; the first matches nothing on the screen at either scale. Both are additive, so they do not change the answer, and neither is guessed at here. -⚠️ **Reach.** Two screens, one session, one emulator. Every element on the two -screens the port ships is in the table except the two above and `pteff10`, which -did not appear as an identifiable quad. The title screen (build 4) was **not** -captured. +⚠️ **Reach.** Two screens, one session, one emulator. The title screen (build 4) +was **not** captured. + +🔴 **The sentence that stood here was wrong, and `sylpheed-port` caught it +(2026-08-31).** It read: *"Every element on the two screens the port ships is in +the table except the two above and `pteff10`, which did not appear as an +identifiable quad."* Counting an element as covered if it appears in the per-draw +log **or** in a prose row of the summary table, what is actually missing is + +| screen | in neither | +|---|---| +| main menu | `pteff10` — as stated | +| **`EXTRAS`** | `pteff10`, **`ptframe4`, `pteff21`, `pteff22`, `pteff23`** | + +**Five, not one**, and on `EXTRAS` the four extra ones are precisely the elements +the port measures as the worst on that screen. A reader of the old sentence would +have concluded the coverage was complete but for one unidentifiable quad. + +✅ **The cause is found and fixed** — Canary's vertex dump was capped at 8 +vertices, two quads, so `EXTRAS`' 24-index additive draw reported two of its six +elements and the other four looked like elements the game never draws. See the +2026-08-31 section below. The result rows were never wrong; the claim about what +they covered was. + +⚠️ **And "every button" in the table above is a class generalisation**, in the +page whose own instruction is to read it as per-element facts. It came from +`ptbtn01f` on the main menu. Run 3 below raises it to five buttons plus the focus +ring, individually, **on the main menu**; no `EXTRAS` button has been measured at +all. ---