80 findings, not the 14 the first run showed -- clippy stops at the first
failing compilation unit, so `--keep-going` is what makes the list complete.
60 were machine-applicable (`cargo clippy --fix`). The rest by hand:
* five descending `sort_by` -> `sort_by_key(Reverse(..))`
* `chunks_exact(4)` on both sides of four zips, so the compared items stay
`[u8; 4]` rather than one array against one slice
* three `type` aliases for the census maps and the captured-quad tuple
* `&PathBuf` -> `&Path` in two disc tests
* two range loops; one of them keeps `#[allow(needless_range_loop)]` with the
reason -- the index is into a map's value, which changes each iteration
* the module doc list in `invert_capture` re-indented to markdown's rules
* `blit`'s eight arguments get `#[allow(too_many_arguments)]`, not a struct
One dead `let off = b.len();` in a `ratc` test is dropped rather than renamed.
The sibling test at :162 is the one that asserts an offset; if this one was
meant to as well, that is a test change and not a lint fix.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
REFUTED.md kills this claim: 'T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02 selects an additive blend ->
mine, and refuted. Blending those sprites additively worsens every measure
against the capture.' That refutation rests entirely on our renderer, which the
corpus's own rule calls a hypothesis under test. The blend is now measured off
the GPU, so the claim can be tested against the oracle.
35 elements over three screens, every label an RB_BLENDCONTROL0 value read from
the command stream: 16 bit-set and additive, 19 bit-clear and alpha-over, zero
false positives, zero false negatives.
The control that makes it a decode rather than a coincidence: of every bit of
the first 12 header words, EXACTLY ONE separates those 35 elements without
error. Nothing ties with it. A perfect partition on a small sample is worthless
if half the header partitions equally well, which is the mistake +0x08 = 0x8050
was.
And the pair no confound survives: ptbtn00 = 0x0110, ptbtn00f = 0x0112 -- the
PRESS (A) plate and its own highlight, same screen, differing in exactly this
bit, drawn alpha-over and additive respectively.
Committed alongside is a PREDICTION for GP_OPTIONS, written before the capture
that tests it: a different archive, a different element set, and a MIXED
prediction -- po_menu_eff01/02/03 additive, 592 elements alpha-over. Falsified
if those three draw alpha-over or anything else draws additive. The developer
splash was considered first and rejected as a test: both its elements predict
alpha-over, so it can fail but cannot discriminate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
menu_blend_capture.sh counted two DOWNs to reach EXTRAS, which is wrong twice
over -- EXTRAS is the fifth item, and on 2026-08-31 four DOWNs landed on OPTIONS
because one press was dropped. It now presses until the cursor stops moving,
which needs no item count and no row calibration. Its title deadline follows the
same change as title_blend_capture.sh, 1200 s not 420.
ui_blend_map.py takes a comma-separated build list, because the live title is
TWO builds composited -- 4 draws the art, 2 draws the PRESS (A) plate -- and a
one-build size table cannot name the elements of a title capture.
frame_alpha_census takes its builds from argv for the same reason.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
The port measures four elements as rendering too dark against the capture --
ptframe1/2 on the main menu, ptframe3/4 on EXTRAS -- with the shortfall
correlating +0.77/+0.80 with the BACKGROUND and only +0.24 with the element's
own contribution. That is the signature of a blend that scales what is already
there. It asked whether the disc selects one.
Three examples, one negative, wider than the one I gave last iteration:
* frame_alpha_census -- every T8aD sprite on builds 5 and 6 by alpha. It
REFUTES the port's own sharpener: 'neither frame has a single fully-opaque
pixel, against ptbase's 99.1 %' is true, and pteff10 (max alpha 130, 100 %
partial, no opaque pixel) is measured by the port as NEARLY EXACT. So being
wholly semi-transparent is not what makes the frames special.
* frame_vs_accurate_words -- all 12 T8aD header words for both screens, plus a
per-BIT sweep of +0x04 and +0x08. NO word and NO bit puts the four frames on
one side and pteff10 on the other. It also kills my own remaining candidate a
second time: +0x08 = 0x8050 is shared with pteff21/22/23 on EXTRAS.
* frame_keyframe_unknowns -- the keyframe record's fade, tint, rotation and its
two unexplained signed words. unknown_4 and unknown_8 are ZERO on every
keyframe of both screens, so they carry nothing here; no frame takes a value
of any field that another element does not.
Reach: the 60-byte declaration entry, the T8aD header word-wise and bit-wise,
and the keyframe record. Four elements, two screens. Not the executable's draw
path, which is the next commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
