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

re: record the disc-side corroboration as a separate quantity, and the log-line substitution

Browse Source 
sylpheed-port checked the JP layout from their export: the disc declares identical
button rows for EN and JP on main_menu and extras. Recorded separately rather than
merged with mine, because they are different quantities -- their rows are declared
rest positions, my 225.5 is a runtime ring row on a surface offset ~65 px from
design space. Either could have disagreed, which is what makes them independent
legs, after a week of finding legs that were not.

Neither is evidence for GP_DIALOG 2/3; both are about GP_TITLE.

Also records the mid-run substitution: I diagnosed a detector failure from a log
line showing glyph 11654 when the capture was one read away and showed the detector
working. A log line is a summary someone wrote, and reading it as the observation is
the same substitution as trusting a harness note.

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 04:33:06 +00:00
parent 2f5d25fb13
commit f2e8d4f786
2 changed files with 38 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -3279,3 +3279,20 @@ agreement, and neither party re-examines a quantity they both accept.
the largest time is nonzero, `+0x04` is 0 % under either denominator, and the offset
stands on both scans. **Three rounds of correction over an interpretation that was
never load-bearing** — which is also why it was safe to keep pulling.
## A log line is a summary someone wrote; reading it as the observation is a substitution
Mid-run I concluded my menu detector had failed in `ja`, because the log showed
**glyph 11654** far outside the 250–420 band. It had not: the JP menu detects at
**320** against English's **327**, both in band — the 11654 was a **later phase**. I
diagnosed from the log line instead of opening the capture.
📌 `sylpheed-port` placed it beside the harness-note finding and the pairing is
right: **an assumption in a harness note is invisible, and a log line is a summary
someone wrote.** Reading either as the observation is the same substitution — a
description of the evidence standing in for the evidence.
⚠️ The cost here was small only because I checked before publishing. The capture was
one `Read` away the whole time, and the wrong diagnosis would have gone into a data
file as "the detector is locale-specific" — a plausible, tidy, false instrument
finding that nothing downstream would have questioned.