The Decoder decoded the rule I refused to guess: draw the leaf on its own
timeline, do NOT multiply the parent's alpha in. Multiplying is refuted rather
than unsupported -- at the fitted time the parent has expired, so leaf x parent
predicts zero for both quads and the sweeps would be invisible. They are drawn.
Implemented: `_draw_leaf` runs the leaf unclamped, like the spinning ring and for
the same reason -- held at its own rest.t the leaf sits at x=1521, entirely off
the right edge, so `holding` would delete the sweeps rather than settle them.
AND IT CHANGES NOTHING MEASURABLE. The title is still 1.82% against the oracle:
1.82 at t=261, 1.81 at t=355, 1.79 at t=420. At t=355 my interpolation puts the
leaf's top-left at x ~ -324, off-screen left, where the Decoder's model puts the
quad's CENTRE at 981. Those cannot both be right, and it is not something to tune
away -- it is a disagreement about how the leaf's keyframes become a placed quad,
most likely in the pivot and the rotation about it. Handed back with both
numbers.
So: the exporter no longer drops the data, the composition rule is implemented as
decoded, and the port's largest oracle gap is exactly where it was. Fixing the
export was necessary and not sufficient.
TWO FLAGGED ELEMENTS DELIBERATELY NOT DRAWN, in authored/rendering.json with
reasons. title_jp/ptlogo_eff2 (parent 125%, leaf 100%) is the same shape and is
the element DECISIONS has recorded since P1 as the largest render disagreement --
but the Decoder said plainly "I have not tested it", and drawing it would extend
a decode past the case it was fitted on. pgloading_loop5's leaf is scale (0,0),
and scale-0 is one of the three historical failures this corpus names.
Neither can be adjudicated here: title_jp has no oracle capture, and
verify-screen compares against a renderer that draws no leaves at all, so ANY
leaf drawing increases that divergence whether right or wrong. Its max went
155 -> 232 when they were drawn, and that number is not evidence in either
direction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
The Decoder overturned the elimination I was most confident about. I ruled out
the ptloop sweeps because "399x180 at (441,270), keyframes hold position
constant". That is the PARENT's record. The geometry is in the leaf.
ptloop01 parent: scale (100,100) rot 0, fixed at (441,270)
LEAF: scale (100,600) rot +30, x sweeping -639 -> -39 -> 1521
ptloop02 parent: scale (100,100) rot 0, fixed at (441,270)
LEAF: scale (100,800) rot -45, x sweeping 1721 -> 1111 -> -839
Two ~1080 and ~1440 px quads leaning opposite ways and sweeping across the frame,
against two 400 px sprites drawn upright and static in the middle. That is
exactly the signature I measured -- darker centre-left, brighter right, nearly
cancelling -- and the GPU capture puts their centres at x ~ 467 and 992, the two
cells where my signed difference peaked.
`ui_layout`'s own doc comment said it: "the rotated quads come from its two
nested .rat leaf records, which the census never opened". Neither did this
exporter -- it opened a leaf in exactly one place, `highlight_name`, for focus
records.
IT IS NOT TWO ELEMENTS, IT IS 45: every button on every menu (the benign case,
where screen.rs already knew the leaf duplicates the parent and the parent wins),
the four loading screens' pgloading_loop*, and title_jp's ptlogo_eff2 -- which is
the element DECISIONS has recorded since P1 as the largest render disagreement in
the export, and which has a TWO-element leaf. A lead, not a conclusion.
EMITTED, DELIBERATELY NOT DRAWN. One `read_leaf` closure serves both the new path
and the focus path, because a second copy is how this would go missing again.
ScreenView ignores the data: parent and leaf each carry their own alpha ramp over
a different span (parent 0->255 over t=70..238, leaf 255->0x80->255 over
t=150..600), so how they compose is a decoding question, and drawing on a guess
would replace a visible 1.82% gap with an invisible wrong one. verify-screen
confirms nothing moved.
Additive blending is refuted -- the Decoder tested T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02 and "every
measure worsens", and the export carries no blend field because none has been
found (no RB_BLENDCONTROL in the per-draw capture). My hypothesis from last
iteration is dead.
This makes the port's biggest oracle gap the same item as the rotation question
already standing with the human: sylpheed-cli deliberately does not rotate, which
is why both renderers show it, and MISSION's "Needs a human decision -- rotation"
now has a number: 1.82% of the title's pixels.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
