The census filtered pak entries whose own first four bytes are T8aD. A sprite
is usually a child of a RATC bundle, and a bundle entry's magic is RATC, so a
top-level magic filter cannot see one:
top-level T8aD entries (counted) 4 525 sprites, 45 keys
T8aD inside RATC bundles (missed) 16 659 sprites, 204 keys
both 21 184 sprites, 216 keys
171 of the 216 keys exist only inside bundles. The sharpest statement of the
error: that census never saw GP_TITLE.pak at all -- the pak holding both of the
screens this page's entire evidence comes from.
Retracted: "45 values", "the keys are pak-local", "each auxiliary pak occupies
its own narrow high-byte band". On the full population 68/216 keys (31%, not
9%) cross a pak family and the per-pak ranges overlap heavily -- GP_BUNK
0x8000-0xa110, GP_TITLE 0x8000-0xc150, GP_LEADERBOARD 0x8000-0xf100. The tidy
banding was an artifact of seeing one or two keys per pak. So the key looks
like a shared vocabulary, which is the opposite of what I published.
Survives, now on the full population: the field is a u16 at +0x0A (upper half
zero 21 184/21 184), and it is an enumeration (216 values for 21 184 sprites).
Three wrong numbers on this page now, all the same shape -- a statistic computed
over a population I had not checked was the population in question. Stated once
at the end of the section rather than three times: check the sampling frame
before the statistic.
The census filters pak entries whose own first four bytes are T8aD. The
sprites this page measures paint order on are children of a RATC bundle --
ui_layout.rs reaches them via ratc::parse, and a bundle entry's magic is RATC,
so a child T8aD never matches a top-level magic filter.
So the 45 keys may describe a population that only partly overlaps, or does not
overlap at all with, the one the page's two measured screens come from. I do
not yet know which; the comparison is running. Marking the section rather than
leaving the counts to be read as covering the screens' sprites.
Same failure shape as the 37/45 language-duplication note lower down the page:
a number computed over a population I had not checked was the population in
question. Recording it as such.
The page rested on twelve values from two screens. This walks all 4525 sprites
on the disc.
* The field is a u16 at +0x0A. The upper half of the 32-bit word the page
reads is zero in 4525/4525. Nothing above changes -- 0x00008100 sorts the
same as 0x8100 -- but a future value with the high half set would mean
something had been misread rather than that the layer got deeper.
* It is an enumeration: 45 values for 4525 sprites, one of which (0x8100)
covers 1188 of them.
* The reading worth trying -- a global layer vocabulary shared across the UI
-- is refuted. Only 4 of 45 keys cross a pak family and 33 of 45 live only
in GP_MAIN_GAME_2D; every other pak owns a narrow high-byte band (0x90-0x94
for the in-game overlays, 0xa4 mission log, 0xb1-0xb2 save/load). A screen
that owns one or two keys is not ordering itself with them.
That supports "group id in the high bits, order in the low bits", which is what
the page already suspected, but it does NOT test it: paint order has been
measured on two screens and both are inside GP_MAIN_GAME_2D, so there is no
ground truth to check the split against. Left amber.
The first number I got was 37/45 shared, which would have supported precisely
the wrong conclusion. It came from counting paks instead of pak families: the
six GP_MAIN_GAME_*2D paks are the same screens in six languages and their key
sets are byte-for-byte identical. Recorded on the page, because the shape
recurs -- a corpus with near-duplicate members manufactures agreement.
The three orders the derived rule was built from all live in GP_TITLE.pak, so
they cannot confirm it - the rule was fitted to them. These two are from
GP_SAVE_LOAD.pak, read off the running game now that the Canary threading fix
makes the main menu dependable.
The 9-element slot-list header composites EXACTLY as the sort predicts, on all 6
instances of it, and nothing about this screen was fed into the rule:
measured 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
derived 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
including TWO tied groups (0xb102 x2 and 0xb210 x5) that both come out in
declaration order, and the unkeyed pfeff00.prm fade quad last.
The 13-element save/load frame differs in exactly the two open questions and no
new ones: two unkeyed pfbase.tbm backgrounds paint FIRST where the sort puts the
keyless last - the splash's palogo_eff0.prm behaviour in a different file type,
so implied_layer_key now covers it - and the 0xb100 group of four paints
10,11,8,12 where declaration order is 8,10,11,12.
That second point is a SECOND screen with a mis-ordered tie, which is what the
question needed, and it immediately kills a candidate: 10 and 11 are kind=0x2002
while 8 and 12 are 0x0000, so "descending kind then declaration index"
reproduces 10,11,8,12 exactly - and then fails both title groups, where every
element of 0x8083 is kind 0 and where 0x80a0 would predict 2,3,4,5,0,1,7 against
a measured 0,2,4,7,1,3,5. Seven candidates refuted now.
16 disc tests green.
With the layer key and the primitives' implied keys in place, the tie-break -
how the game orders elements sharing a key - is all that is left between the
derived order and ground truth. Three measured screens now constrain it.
On the menu and the splash every tied group comes out in declaration order,
which is what the stable sort already gives. The title is the only screen that
discriminates, and nothing predicts it: 0x8083 x5 paints eff1, eff2, eff5, eff3,
eff4, and 0x80a0 x7 paints logo1 x3, tm, logo2 x3.
Refuted: declaration order; RATC child order; first keyframe time (52, 56, 62,
58, 60 - the measured order is not sorted by them); resting keyframe time;
resting X or Y (938, 938, 64, 788, 447); and T8aD header words +00, +04, +0c and
+10, which are either identical within a group or unsorted.
Child order is worth its own line: a strict improvement over declaration order
(7 misplaced positions on the title instead of 9, and it recovers the logo
grouping) and exactly right on the other two screens. NOT adopted, because on the
only screen that can tell them apart it is still wrong.
Adds a test that measures what the residual costs instead of assuming it. Of the
3 disagreeing pairs of drawn elements across all three screens, all 3 have
overlapping bounding boxes and 2 share opaque pixels: ptlogo_back2eff5 against
eff3 (22568 px) and eff4 (32395 px). The third pair, ptlogo2 vs ptlogo_tm,
overlaps by two columns and shares NO opaque pixel - the wordmark is transparent
there. A bounding-box test called that a defect; reading the alpha says it is
not, which is why the test reads pixels. The set is pinned, so a change that
makes it worse fails.
15 disc tests green.
Read off the running game with screen_children.py and identified by pivot
signature as GP_TITLE.pak ratc-index 8, the NEW GAME / LOAD GAME / TUTORIAL /
OPTIONS / EXTRAS screen:
paint order: 1 3 4 2 5 8 9 6 7 15 10 11 12 13 14 0
It is the first measured screen carrying TWO primitives, and they land in
different places, which is the point. pteff02.prm (the 25% dim) paints 4th,
beneath the whole UI; pteff00.prm (the transition fade, resting transparent)
paints last. Both match their positions on the title screen exactly. So a
primitive's place is per-element and stable by role - backdrop first, dim at
slot 4, fade last - and there are now three permutations to test a derivation
against rather than two.
Wired into measured_paint_order, keyed by element names so both language builds
get it. The English build composited with --primitives edge-correlates at 0.9591
at shift (0,0) against a framebuffer capture taken in the same session - a third
screen confirming paint order, resting pose, fade alpha and primitives at once,
against a capture this project had not seen before.
13 disc tests green.
The layer-key order was adopted from two measured screens and then applied to
every build on the disc, so it owed a regression check against the screens the
corpus had already validated against the running game.
Rendered the tutorial PAUSE menu and the title main menu both ways and diffed:
3.8 % and 1.1 % of pixels differ, max delta 45/255 and 34/255, and the two
renders are indistinguishable in layout — the change is confined to blends where
translucent sprites overlap. No regression, but which order is more faithful on
those two screens is unsettled and recorded as such.
Adds a corpus-wide test asserting every composite's draw list is strictly
increasing in (layer key, declaration index), streaming one pak at a time so it
does not OOM alongside the other whole-disc tests. It reports the rule's reach:
341 of 965 builds are reordered, and it fails if that share collapses.
compose now sorts elements by the word at +0x08 of their sprite's T8aD header
instead of painting in declaration order, for every build except the two whose
measured order is hard-coded. That word is non-decreasing in the order the game
actually paints both measured screens, so every screen nobody has captured now
gets its layering from the file rather than from the declaration table, which is
provably not the paint order.
Verified with artifacts and both ways, not by a green build: the disc test
asserts the measured orders never invert the key and that the composite's key
sequence is sorted, and reading the word from +0x0c instead makes it fail; the
title composites identically; and GP_MISSION_SELECT — uncaptured — now composites
cleanly, committed as a capture.
Two things recorded rather than smoothed over: ties keep declaration order
because the game breaks them some other way that is not known, and the
developer-logo splash has no .rat child, so is_build rejects it and the
compositor never sees that bundle at all — its measured order is inert in
practice and screen render cannot draw it.
The word at +0x08 of a T8aD header — which this project's decoder never read,
taking width/height/tiles from +0x14 onward — is non-decreasing in the order the
game paints a screen, on BOTH screens whose order has been measured: 20 of the
title's 24 elements (the other four have no T8aD sprite) and 6 of the splash's 7.
No inversion anywhere.
On the splash it explains the whole permutation: the three _eff glows carry
0xa100 and their base logos 0xa110, so the glows paint first even though the
declaration table interleaves them.
This is the first FILE-DERIVABLE account of the paint order. Everything checked
before failed — declaration order and its reverse, the placement region, the RATC
child order, keyframe start and rest times, resting Y, the runtime record's
fields, and every other build's table.
Recorded as unsettled: the ties (two groups share a key and are painted in an
order that is not declaration order), what the bits actually mean (the values
look like flag words, and the two screens use different ranges), and the fact
that two screens is two screens — a third permutation either promotes this to a
rule or breaks it.
