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
The four elements the port measured as the worst on EXTRAS, and which appeared
in no draw, were in a draw all along: the 24-index additive batch holds six
quads and Canary printed the first two. Cap raised to 64, screen re-captured,
all six named. Same draw as ptframe3, whose state was already measured -- the
one-way implication doing real work.
pteff10 is identified too, and it needed the resting SCALE: it ships as 409x144
and is drawn at 200 % x 500 % = 816x720. The matcher's 'try 1x and 2x' rule
could not name it at any scale and reported a near miss against something else,
which is a failure wearing the clothes of an answer. Candidates are now the
declaration's pivot*2 scaled by the resting keyframe as well as the texture at
1x and 2x, and the tolerance is the log's own NDC print quantisation rather than
a chosen number.
Flagged rather than buried: pteff10 measuring additive is in tension with the
port measuring it nearly exact under alpha-over. Both can be true for a dim
semi-transparent glow over a dark background, and it is the one row a rendering
check does not corroborate.
Also stated: the three full-screen alpha-over draws are NOT individually
identified -- four elements declare 1280x720 -- so the label on those rows is a
candidate, not an identification.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
