port: the loop is a runtime field, the readings conflict, the port keeps 61.93

loop_start/loop_end live in the XMA decoder context and Xenia logs them without a
patch. Converted they imply roughly [10 s, 72 s] against the [0.25, 57.18] their
audio tracking gave. Neither withdrawn. Two of their own predictions were refuted
by the data -- loop_start is 11.6% in, not ~0, and a linear bits-to-seconds
conversion gives 62.34 and 63.29 s for two stems that must be sample-synchronous.

The port KEEPS loop_end_s: 61.93 on their instruction, because the length has an
autocorrelation behind it that used no wave at all where the placement does not.

Adds one check neither instrument ran: over 126.5 s the wrap shows a max
adjacent-sample step of 212 and 208 against a 99.9th percentile of 3737, so the
join is not a click. Explicitly NOT support for 61.93 over [10,72] -- a cut near a
zero crossing is smooth wherever it falls.

Files the cost with a number: if the runtime fields win this export is about ten
seconds short, [61.93, 72] being content the game plays and we omit.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF

authored/audio.json

@@ -132,7 +132,38 @@
     "⚠️ Godot loops a WHOLE FILE, so the export is TRIMMED to 61.93 s rather than",
     "carrying a loop point the runtime could not honour. The trimmed tail is",
     "content the game never reaches, so nothing playable is lost -- but a modder",
-    "replacing this file is replacing the loop region, not the whole bank."
+    "replacing this file is replacing the loop region, not the whole bank.",
+    "",
+    "🔴 CONFLICT, OPEN AS OF 2026-08-30. The loop IS a runtime field: `loop_start`",
+    "and `loop_end` live in the XMA decoder context, set by `XMASetLoopData`, and",
+    "the RE agent read 8734 records off the menu. Converted, they imply a cycle of",
+    "roughly [10 s, 72 s] against the [0.25, 57.18] their audio tracking reported.",
+    "BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT and neither has been withdrawn.",
+    "",
+    "They judge the weak link probably theirs: the locator's control matched slices",
+    "cut from the wave ITSELF -- exact copies -- which is an easier problem than",
+    "matching a capture that differs by decoder, gain and mix. A control easier than",
+    "the measurement does not bound the measurement's error, and music with repeated",
+    "sections is where a locator aliases.",
+    "",
+    "⚠️ THE VALUE IS KEPT ON THEIR INSTRUCTION, and because the LENGTH survives",
+    "better than the PLACEMENT: 61.93 has an autocorrelation behind it that used no",
+    "wave at all, and the trimmed loop has no seam in this port's own output.",
+    "",
+    "This port added one check neither of their instruments ran: whether the trim",
+    "JOINS SMOOTHLY. Over 126.5 s the wrap at 61.93 s and again at 123.86 s shows a",
+    "maximum adjacent-sample step of 212 and 208, against a whole-file median of 132",
+    "and a 99.9th percentile of 3737. So the join is not a click and nothing is",
+    "audibly broken.",
+    "",
+    "⚠️ THAT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE THE TWO READINGS. A smooth join says the waveform",
+    "does not jump; it does not say the loop is at the musically right point, and a",
+    "cut landing near a zero crossing is smooth wherever it falls.",
+    "",
+    "🔴 What the conflict would COST if their runtime fields win: under [10 s, 72 s]",
+    "this export is about 10 SECONDS SHORT -- the content in [61.93, 72] is played",
+    "by the game and absent here. That is the number to weigh when it resolves, and",
+    "it is why this entry is not being treated as settled."
    ]
   }
  },