fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: correct the blend page's reach sentence -- five elements uncovered, not one

Browse Source 
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) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-31 06:48:41 +00:00
parent 529cf13f2a
commit f0b4f0ad5f
1 changed files with 29 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

33
docs/re/structures/ui-blend-mode-measured.md
View File

@@ -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.
---