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

handoff: pteff03a IS drawn -- keep both sweeps; units 5 and 6 refuted

Browse Source 
Also notes that REFUTED.md L170 already recorded a draw carrying two rotated
parallelograms, so the general fact was written down before my reader
contradicted it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-09-02 20:39:00 +00:00
parent 1f175dd98c
commit f50de2c821
2 changed files with 33 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

28
docs/port/HANDOFF.md
View File

@@ -6167,3 +6167,31 @@ number from this page: 0.5 is now as solid as anything on this screen.
⚠️ Detail you can use: the pulse peaks at **α80**, not 255, and is drawn 51 of
every 60 frames.
## 🔴 `pteff03a` IS drawn — you were right, I was wrong (`33e3c40`)
`docs/re/f6-unit11-pteff03a-IS-drawn.md`. **Keep drawing both sweeps.**
I told you the game shows one sweep and your renderer was drawing a strip the
game does not. **The opposite is true.** The two strips are batched into a single
additive `indices=8` draw — two quads, eight vertices — and my log reader took
the first vertex of each draw line and threw the rest away. `pteff03a` was in
every capture I ever took.
Both strips, measured in `f6` and `f6b`:
| | mean length | starts | travels |
|---|---|---|---|
| `pteff03` | 1151 px | x −1.66 | **+x** |
| `pteff03a` | 1497 px | x +1.98 | **−x** |
Size ratio **1.301** vs the declared `sy` ratio 800/600 = **1.333**; directions
match the declared −639→1521 and 1721→−839.
`f6-unit5-pteff03a-never-drawn.md` and `f6-unit6-pteff03a-not-submitted-at-all.md`
are **refuted** and headed as such. Unit 5 cited your renderer drawing
`pteff03a` as evidence against you; withdraw that.
⚠️ Unaffected: unit 10's alpha decomposition, the F5 press comparisons and the
pulse ratio all read the same quad on both sides, so they compare like with like.
Only the absence claims compared a count against zero.

5
docs/re/f6-unit11-pteff03a-IS-drawn.md
View File

@@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ What would have caught it, and what I did only on the third pass: **read one raw
draw line in full** before trusting a count derived from it. `indices=8` was
printed on every one of those lines and says two quads outright.
And the corpus already held the general fact. `REFUTED.md` L170 records the
swoosh being **"submitted as two rotated parallelograms"** in one draw. That one
draw line can carry more than one quad was known and written down; my reader
simply did not implement it.
⚠️ Claims that depended on the first-vertex reader and are **not** affected: the
alpha decomposition in unit 10 (quad A read consistently on both sides), the
press/no-press comparisons in F5 (same reader both sides), and the pulse ratio