907b2b5487e124be4713343dc440bc6cb617e56d
1376 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sylpheed port agent
|
907b2b5487 |
port: 60 units/s stands on a third route, and the open half is immaterial here
The Decoder reconciled three of their own pages that held incompatible positions -- 2 units per guest frame, time-integrated at 56.8, and 1 unit per present -- with one mechanism: the clock advances ONE UNIT PER VBLANK, and presents may be dropped without the clock caring. It explains steps that are always multiples of 17, and the same animation spanning 21 labels in one capture and 33 in another, which a strict per-present clock cannot produce. Their rate result is a manipulation, not an observation: 255 declared units take 4.263/4.162 s at a 60 Hz vblank and 8.450 s at --framerate_limit=30. The vblank rate sets the unit rate; a console vblanks at 60. So the justification for 60 has now been "2 units per rendered frame" (retired), "the game presents at 60 Hz" (superseded), and now "one unit per 60 Hz vblank". THE NUMBER HAS NEVER MOVED. Worth noticing rather than celebrating: a value whose reason changes three times while it survives is either robust or under-constrained, and the honest label is still `authored`. 📌 THIS PORT INSTANTIATES THEIR NULL MODEL, which is the one thing this side can contribute to that argument. Their reasoning turns on "a time-integrated clock predicts 4.25 s in BOTH conditions". This port IS a working time-integrated clock at 60 units/s, and its splash dwell across a 4.0x change in its own rendering rate is 4.28/4.26/4.27/4.26 s -- flat to 0.5 %. Their counterfactual is demonstrated rather than assumed. ⚠️ Labelled: that is evidence about the NULL, not about the game. It says what a time-integrated clock does, not what the game's clock is. 🟡 And per-vblank vs per-present stays open, with the discriminating experiment named on their side. IT IS IMMATERIAL TO THIS PORT AND THEY SHOULD NOT RUN IT ON THE PORT'S ACCOUNT: the two models differ only when the console DROPS a present -- per-vblank keeps real-time pace through a drop, per-present slows. This port is time-based, so it matches per-vblank exactly and would run marginally ahead of per-present during drops only. On a console presenting every vblank they coincide, and these screens are a handful of quads. Nothing in the port changes. Not settled: findings 3 and 4, both still with no surviving named cause; the clock origin, which the Decoder reports blocked because no capture reaches the title; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; the allowance's grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b88e2e38b1 |
port: record that the blend oracle's instrument was container-only until today
From the Decoder's audit of their own /canary checkout, not from anything visible on this side. They applied their own lesson rather than stating it, and the exposure was four logger commits deep, not one. The sharpest bears directly on what this port shipped. `0f920e645` adds `blend=` per draw, and without it a draw log records NO BLEND STATE AT ALL -- so ui-blend-mode-decoded.md's 35-element oracle, the evidence on which this port DELETED its authored additive map, could not be re-derived by anyone who cloned this repository. Not approximately. Not at all. It is reproducible now: four container-only commits exported as patches on their branch with a rebuild recipe. Named in prose without a resolvable path, since that directory is not in this checkout and citing it as one would be the exact defect check-citations exists to catch. What it changes: nothing is retracted. The measurement was real when made and is now portable, and the trade was still right -- a screen-name map cannot answer for a screen nobody drove to, so the decoded field is better regardless. What it changes is what "decoded" was resting on: for the window between adoption and export, this port had deleted an authored entry in favour of a field whose supporting oracle nobody else could regenerate. 📌 Theirs, and the durable line: a finding is only as portable as the tool that produced it, and a reproduce recipe that READS as complete is the dangerous kind. Theirs named shas, which is why four commits sat unexported while one was noticed. ⚠️ And this port cannot check the class from here. check-citations scans repo paths; an instrument living in another container is not a path at all. The only defence available on this side is asking what produced a number before adopting it -- which is a habit, not a check, and does not run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
7a0318c2c0 |
port: a reproduce recipe naming a path off this repo is not a recipe
From the Decoder's catch at shutdown, not my own. They found their Canary logger change -- the texture content hash -- living UNCOMMITTED in /canary, a checkout pushed nowhere. Two committed findings could not be reproduced without it: it is the field separating "the buffer rotated" from "a frame was decoded", and its absence is what cost two withdrawn positions on units/second in one day. They committed it and exported it into the repo as a patch. Their generalisation applies here too, so I audited this side at the same moment. One real instance: DECISIONS.md cited `/reborn/docs/re/captures/main-menu-oracle.png` as the evidence for a decision. The capture IS in the repository, at docs/re/captures/main-menu-oracle.png -- only the path was stale, left by the monorepo move. Fixed. The other /reborn mentions are deliberate: one warns the mount is empty, one is a table row listing the pattern as an example of what not to do. ⚠️ tools/port/check-citations does NOT catch this class, and the gap is named rather than quietly left: it scans for REPO paths that fail to resolve, and an absolute path is not a repo path, so it slips through. Extending it to flag off-repo absolutes -- especially ones whose basename does resolve in-repo, the recoverable case -- is the obvious next increment and is deliberately NOT done here. It was found minutes before a shutdown, and a hasty checker is worse than a named gap. Index regenerated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
975d24def2 |
port: --linger, so a scripted walk can observe what arrives after it settles
Last iteration I inferred the returned plate's fade from code-path identity because the harness could not watch it: `--script` quits the moment the last step settles, and the plate arrives on its declared ramp ~3.6 s later. A film of `--script=cancel` stopped at 168 units and never reached 214. `--linger=SECONDS` holds the run open past the walk. `_script_settled` still waits for a hold before shooting -- a shot taken mid-fade is a photograph of a fade -- this only changes what happens after the shot, which was "exit". Pre-registered: the returned plate sits at its floor until 214 units, then rises to full by 236, the same ramp the boot shows. Measured: units=208.75 0.145404 floor units=216.58 0.158596 units=224.41 0.179036 units=232.25 0.203050 units=240.08 0.215005 full -- boot path gives 0.2142 at t=236 So the return fades, identically to the boot, and it is now OBSERVED rather than argued from the branch it takes. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
1c2782247d |
port: the plate POPPED on a return to the title where the boot fades it
The Decoder warned that my port "presumably models one title". Checking that found a real behavioural split, and the code was right where I expected it wrong and wrong where I did not. My prediction FAILED first: I expected the port to be inventing a plate on a (B)-reached title, because flow.json's scope_why says that is deliberately not claimed. It is not inventing -- the call site cites a measurement from 2026-08-30, the plate IS re-drawn after (B). scope_why was the stale thing, and is corrected. 🔴 BUT THE TWO PATHS DIFFER, AND A `why` CLAIMED THEY DO NOT. That call site says "the plate re-appears by the SAME path, with the same shared clock, as it does on boot. Whatever the boot does, the return does." Filmed: before: el=1.39 view_u=0.00 overlay_u= 0.00 plate absent el=1.53 view_u=8.67 overlay_u=244.67 plate present The overlay clock jumped 0 -> 244.67 in ONE frame. The plate POPPED, where the boot fades it across its declared 214->236. Cause: `_overlay_process` detected "static diagnostic mode" as `_sequence.is_empty()`, and `_sequence` is populated only by `--boot`. So `--menu` matched it too and the menu's return took the `--screen --overlay` diagnostic branch, which poses the overlay at settle_time() by design. A proxy for one mode that silently caught another. Fixed by gating on the flag itself -- `_static_overlay`, set only by `--overlay=` without `--boot`. Verified both directions: diagnostic still poses: --screen=title --overlay=press_start --time=4 -> "overlay press_start at t = 240.00 units, drew 2" return now shares the clock: overlay_u == view_u on every filmed frame, plate at its 0.1377 floor through 168 units boot path unchanged: plate reaches full alpha at t=236, boot completes 10.46 s ⚠️ WHAT I DID NOT OBSERVE, stated rather than glossed: the plate actually RISING on the return path. `--script` quits when the walk settles, so the film stops at ~168 units and never reaches 214. The rise is established on the BOOT path (measured earlier: 0.1457 at 210 u, 0.2142 at 236 u) and the return now provably takes that same branch with an identical clock -- but the final rise on this path is inferred from path identity, not filmed. ⚠️ And whether the GAME fades the returned plate is still unmeasured. The 7.3 s between (B) and the pulse returning is consistent with a transition plus the declared fade, but that is consistency, not a measurement of the ramp on this path. Recorded in scope_why. Not settled: finding 3, no surviving cause; the clock origin, which the Decoder reports blocked -- no capture contains the title, because it sits on the far side of a 137.7 s movie and the runs were too short; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
15702d0d05 |
port: the game's clock is frame-based, ours is time-based, and 60 is finally supported
The --framerate_limit=30 run refuted the time-based reading on every discriminating row, against its author's own expectation: modal alpha step stayed 17 where time-based predicts 34, units/second halved to 30.2, the publisher dwell doubled to 8.450 s. Both controls passed FIRST -- the limiter demonstrably took effect, and all 8 splash quad rects were identical, so nothing but the frame rate differed. 255 x 1 / 15 = 17 at 28.4, 51.4 and 54.8 presents/s alike. THE GAME ADVANCES 1 UNIT PER PRESENTED FRAME. This port advances `time_units += delta * units_per_second`. Two different mechanisms that agree at exactly one frame rate -- 60 Hz, the only rate the console ever asked the game to be right at. 🔴 DO NOT MAKE THE PORT FRAME-BASED TO MATCH THE GAME, and the reason is now in authored/timing.json so nobody "fixes" it. A time-based port reproduces a 60 Hz console on hardware that is not 60 Hz; a frame-based one drifts on every machine that is not -- and this port has measured ITSELF between 9.7 and 69.4 fps depending on the renderer. Matching the game's mechanism would import a fragility the game never had to survive, because the game only ever ran on one box. ⚠️ BUT IT SHARPENS WHAT 60 CLAIMS. If units/second IS the present rate, then `keyframe_units_per_second = 60` is no longer "the unit is 1/60 s". It is "the game presented these screens at 60 Hz on the console" -- a harder statement, and checkable. ✅ And supported for the first time. Canary unlimited presents at 51-55 Hz with a splash dwell of 4.30/4.60/4.37 s. A natively 30 Hz game would present at ~30 in Canary too -- the framerate_limit run proves it, since forcing 30 made that same splash take 8.45 s. It does not take 8.45 s unforced. So the game asks for ~60. Kept as `authored`, not promoted: this is inference over three measurements rather than a measurement of units per second. It becomes `measured` when someone reads the console's present rate for these screens directly. 🔴 AND IT CLOSES THE CONSTANT AS A CAUSE OF FINDING 3, in the direction that matters. Under the frame-based model the only alternative is a 30 Hz console, which puts the plate at 236/30 = 7.87 s -- LATER than the 3.93 s shipping, not earlier. There is NO console present rate that makes the plate arrive sooner than this port already shows it. The human reported it late; no value of this constant can produce that. The method note is theirs and it is the durable part: four positions on this number were inference over a measured quantity; this one changed an input and watched what moved. The opportunistic comparison -- two captures that happened to differ -- pointed exactly the wrong way, because nothing controlled what else differed between them. One designed capture settled it against its author's expectation. Not settled: finding 3, still with no surviving cause; the clock origin, which they are taking next and which every ratio and count in this account survives; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; the allowance's grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c6b3256574 |
port: withdraw my "no hold" finding -- the port holds, and 60 is now positively supported
The Decoder withdrew 120 and returned to 60, which the port never left. Nothing has to be undone. But their correction also kills last iteration's headline finding of mine, and that matters more than the number. 🔴 WITHDRAWN: "the port has no hold" and "two errors that cancel". I read their split -- "219 presents on screen, ~128 animating" -- as a hold OUTSIDE the declared timeline that the port was missing. It is a split WITHIN it. The publisher ramps 0-30, HOLDS 30-235 (205 units, 80.4 % of the screen) and fades 235-255, and this port plays all three. Measured rather than read. Frozen samples of the logo region: t=0.25 s (15 u) 0.390957 mid-ramp t=1.00 s (60 u) 0.405488 t=2.00 s (120 u) 0.405488 t=3.00 s (180 u) 0.405488 t=3.80 s (228 u) 0.405488 identical to six decimals across 168 units t=4.20 s (252 u) 0.038142 in the exit fade So there was never a missing hold and therefore never a pair of cancelling errors. authored/timing.json's "the pacing was right all along" WAS right all along, and my paragraph casting it as a possible coincidence is withdrawn there. ⚠️ The failure was not a mis-measurement. I took a two-part split from someone else's instrument and assumed its boundary sat where my own model put it. Presents are not units, and "animating vs holding" in presents does not decompose the same way as "ramp vs hold" in declared units. That is a new failure shape for this corpus and it is worth the name. ✅ AND THE DWELL FIGURES ARE NOW POSITIVE EVIDENCE, not survivors. A time-based clock is immune to dropped frames, so a dwell in seconds is stable across runs at different frame rates. The port's own splash dwell across a 4.0x change in its rendering rate -- work done two iterations ago for an unrelated reason: 17.3 fps -> 4.28 s 19.6 -> 4.26 25.0 -> 4.27 69.4 -> 4.26 a 0.5 % spread, putting 255 units at 59.6-59.9 units/s every time. 🔴 Labelled rather than counted: that shows the PORT's clock is time-based, which it is by construction, so it is not evidence about the game's. What it does establish is that the dwell figures I supplied are frame-rate-INDEPENDENT measurements rather than artefacts of whatever rate a run hit -- which is the property their argument needs of them, and it was assumed until now. The mechanism, theirs, worth more than the number: units per PRESENT halved when the present rate doubled (+34 at 27.2 presents/s, +17 at 51.4) while units per SECOND did not move (54.4 vs 51.4). "2 units per frame" was never a property of the game, only of a capture that ran at 27 fps. 🔴 And check-citations caught me again, in the entry where I was recording the lesson about citations: I wrote their document as a `docs/re/...md` path that does not resolve here. The check does not care about the disclaimer next to it, which is correct. Named without a path now. Finding 3 is OPEN AGAIN with no surviving named cause. Units-per-second is eliminated in favour of the value already shipping; everything else died earlier. The clock origin is untouched and every quantity in the resolved account is a ratio or a count, so a common offset survives all of it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c24ea3ba0e |
port: my falsifier was malformed, and following it through found two errors that cancel
CONCEDED. I set the falsifier as "at 120 the publisher splash runs 2.125 s against cold boots measuring 4.30/4.60/4.37". 2.125 s is the declared ANIMATION length; 4.3 s is how long the SCREEN is up. The screen holds after the timeline ends, so those are different quantities and the comparison would have found a contradiction at ANY units-per-second. The Decoder also checked the defence I handed them -- that the dwell corpus might be emulator-contaminated -- and declined it. Their capture reproduces those boots (publisher 4.263 s, developer 3.457 s, four runs agreeing). They could have waved my numbers away and did not. 🔴 BUT FOLLOWING IT THROUGH FOUND SOMETHING NOBODY HAD SAID: THE PORT HAS NO HOLD. publisher declared 255 units measured 4.270 s animation at 60 = 4.250 s developer declared 210 units measured 3.527 s animation at 60 = 3.500 s The port's screen time IS its animation time; the residual is +0.02 s, i.e. none. The game, by the Decoder's counts, is on screen 219 presents and animates ~128 of them -- about 42 % hold. So if 120 is right, this port makes TWO ERRORS THAT CANCEL: it animates every splash 2x too slow, and it omits the hold entirely, and the two sum to almost exactly the right total screen time. That is why the dwell check passes, and authored/timing.json cited that agreement as proof -- "So the pacing was right all along and nothing changes in the code." Conditional on 120, that sentence is a coincidence. Corrected in place. ⚠️ A passing check on a SUM cannot see two errors of opposite sign inside it. Fourth member of today's family, after the non-inverting latch check, the unguarded buffer assumption, and the segmentation that nearly produced a convenient answer. 🔴 AND 120 EXPLAINS BOTH OPEN PLAY-TEST FINDINGS. 60 EXPLAINS NEITHER. finding 3, "the plate arrives late": at 60 full at 3.933 s at 120 1.967 s finding 4, "the game's fade is MORE PRONOUNCED": at 60 build-in 0.750 s, then the screen leaves at once at 120 build-in 0.375 s, then the screen HOLDS ~1.7 s At 60 the logo drifts in slowly and leaves; at 120 it snaps in and sits, which is what "more pronounced" describes. Finding 4 is explained twice over by one constant -- the fade is 2x slow AND the hold is missing. Every named cause for both findings has died over the past several iterations; 120 is the first hypothesis that accounts for either, and it accounts for both. This is not a measurement and I am not calling it decisive. It is the one thing the port can contribute that no capture can: what a human watching both reported. STILL HOLDING AT 60. Reach is one boot and they are not asking me to lift it. ⚠️ The hold and the constant are COUPLED. At 60 the port must NOT gain a hold -- the animation already fills the screen time and a hold would overshoot by ~40 %. The missing hold is a defect only if 120 is right. When it moves it is TWO changes: the constant, and a hold measured as (screen presents - animation presents), which must NOT be inferred from the total -- the total is exactly the quantity that cannot distinguish the two errors. Not settled: the constant; the clock origin; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
07da4f167f |
port: hold at 60 against a better 120, audit the switch, and name its falsifier first
The Decoder measures 120 units/s with a content-hash experiment carrying the controls the withdrawn version lacked -- a static texture hashing constant (1 change in 403 samples) and movie luma not constant (102 distinct) -- against pre-registered bands the observed 0.5739 falls inside. It is a better experiment than either it replaces. THE PORT HAS NOT MOVED. It is their third position on this number in one day, reach is one boot, and they said themselves that a second independent boot before a timeline is rewritten is the defensible call. Agreed. ⚠️ And 60 is not defended either -- its bracket was withdrawn this morning. Both numbers are undefended. The port keeps the one it ships because switching on a single capture is a worse failure than holding on none. That is the whole reasoning and it is not evidence about the game. ✅ THE AUDIT THEY ASKED FOR COMES OUT CLEAN. "If seconds are baked in anywhere, they all move." No seconds are baked into the timeline: every second this port prints or acts on is computed as units / keyframe_units_per_second at the point of use -- settle_time, exit_time, _overlay_quit_at, the boot log. audio.json's loop_start_s / loop_end_s ARE seconds and correctly do NOT follow the constant; they are positions in an audio file with no keyframe unit in them. So the switch is one number in one file. 🔴 ONE EXCEPTION, AND IT WAS HIDING BEHIND A COMMENT ABOUT NOT DRIFTING. tools/port/verify-dwell read black_hold_units from the authored file "so it cannot drift again" -- and then divided by a literal 60.0. The value could not drift; the conversion could, and would have gone silently wrong the moment the constant moved, which is under active dispute right now. Harmless only because the hold is 0. Fixed to read the rate from the same file it already opens. That is the third time in this corpus a `why` has described a property the code did not have, and the first where the comment and the defect were one line apart. 📌 AND THE FALSIFIER IS PRE-REGISTERED, BEFORE ANY SECOND BOOT, in docs/port/units-per-second-switch-readiness.md. At 120 every declared interval halves: the plate lands at 1.967 s, the publisher splash runs 2.125 s and the developer 1.750 s. Three cold boots measured those splashes at 4.30/4.60/4.37 and 3.51/3.50/3.37. So 120 and the dwell corpus cannot both be right in wall-clock seconds -- the same collision that killed the 35 units/s proposal from the other direction, arriving from the opposite side. Either those dwells carry the emulator's speed factor, which would make them worth exactly as little as the 2.13 s route the Decoder has already declined to lean on, or 120 is wrong. Naming that now is the point of writing it before the boot rather than after. What would move this port: a second independent boot agreeing, AND a statement on whether the cold-boot dwell corpus survives the same speed-factor objection that the 2.13 s route does not. The first without the second leaves a 2x contradiction standing between two numbers the port would then hold at once. Not settled: the constant; the clock origin, which every ratio and count above survives untouched; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; the allowance's grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b42ff385ed |
port: my 12-unit bracket is withdrawn, and 41 % of my own doc citations did not resolve
Two things, and the first is a refutation of mine that lands.
1. THE 12-UNIT BRACKET IS WITHDRAWN. It excludes nothing.
I kept 60 units/s on the ground that "12 declared units measured at 0.14-0.30 s
gives 40-86 units/s, so 120 is excluded". The Decoder refuted it and I checked
the arithmetic myself:
120 units/s predicts 12 units in 0.100 s -- BELOW the sampler's own 0.125 s
resolution, which the source doc states in its own words ("at a sampling
resolution that cannot do better"). A 0.125 s sampler reports such an interval
as about one sample, ~0.125-0.14 s. So the 0.14 s low end is the INSTRUMENT'S
FLOOR, and 12/0.14 = 85.7 is an upper bound produced by dividing by a floored
duration. It is the value 120 predicts once the sampler is accounted for.
🔴 And the deeper error is mine rather than the arithmetic. I argued the leg
survived because it "never touched a frame count". True, and INSUFFICIENT: every
wall-clock duration off Canary is true/speed_factor, so apparent units/s = true x
speed, and the speed factor is precisely what makes the three routes disagree. I
checked the leg for the WRONG CONTAMINANT. Frame-free is not clock-free, and on
this emulator clock-free is the property that matters.
What survives is the half I did not lead with: the declared 12 units are
independently confirmed as SIX FRAMES by screen-transitions.md's 255/6-per-frame
ramp, with no wall clock in it. That is evidence about units per FRAME -- never in
dispute -- and silent about units per second.
So 60 has NO surviving bracket. It stays because nothing supports 120 either and
moving a shipped timeline on no evidence is worse. That is a default, not a
derivation, and the entry now says so. `kind` is already `authored`.
2. 41 % OF THE REPO PATHS CITED IN MY OWN docs/port/ PROSE DID NOT RESOLVE.
The Decoder observed that everything they hand me links into docs/re/ files that
live only on their branch, so every link they send dangles from here. I turned it
on myself and it was worse than I expected: 37 of 91, in two classes.
19 on their topic branch -- real files, not merged. Not errors, and no one in
this container can fix them; the fix is a merge.
7 resolve NOWHERE: docs/BLOCKED.md, docs/DECISIONS.md, docs/FORMAT.md,
port/manifest.json, port/screens/title/*.json. Left behind by the monorepo
move and the export/ rename. Simply wrong -- a reader following one gets
nothing, and nothing had ever told anyone.
All 7 fixed. audit-kinds checks citations in authored/; nothing checked the
PROSE, which is where this port explains itself.
New: tools/port/check-citations, wired into check-all with its control. It fails
ONLY on the resolve-nowhere class and reports the peer-branch class, because a
check that went red for a state nobody here can change is the shape the display
guard exists to prevent. The --selftest plants a dangling citation and requires it
caught, AND a real one and requires it passed -- both directions, since a scanner
that flagged everything would also "pass" the first.
Not settled: finding 3 has no surviving cause and 60 now has no surviving
derivation either; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; pgloading_loop5's residual; the
allowance still waits on its grep trigger.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
3df042f10f |
port: the re-opened rest() pair reaches nothing we draw, and 60 units/s is authored now
Two things, and both are about a label being wrong rather than a value. 1. THE rest() PAIR IS MOOT FOR THIS PORT, and that is measured rather than waited on. R1 re-opened both legs, 8 further claims died with the ⟨render-vs-capture⟩ instrument, and ScreenView.settle_time() uses rest.t -- so this port has been sitting on a question with no instrument behind either side. An element reaches the plateau-less fallback exactly when no two consecutive keyframes are identical. Census over all sixteen screens at every nesting depth: FIVE elements, three distinct -- palogo_sqex_eff, palogo_anima_eff, ptlogo_eff3, plus two region twins. And every one of them is transparent where its rest pose is read: publisher_logo t=140 not drawn: palogo_sqex_eff (transparent) developer_logos t=117 not drawn: palogo_anima_eff (transparent) title_jp --pose=rest not drawn: ptlogo_eff3 (transparent) So no rest() rule -- plateau-plus-dwell, `last`, `maxalpha` or `lastall` -- can change any pixel this port draws. That is why the splash rows score 0.01 % against their captures while resting on a heuristic nobody can currently defend: it is not load-bearing there. 🔴 And the brief's "the two splashes are the ONLY screens reaching that fallback" is narrowly refuted -- title_jp reaches it too, via ptlogo_eff3. Stated as a measurement of the CURRENT export: the record-layout fix re-timed keyframes corpus-wide and a plateau is exactly what that could create or destroy, so this does not say the claim was wrong when written. ⚠️ It does NOT rehabilitate rest.t, still wrong for transients like ptlogo_back2eff1 whose rest.t=54 is a two-frame flash's PEAK. That is a plateau case, not a fallback case, and nothing here touches it. 2. keyframe_units_per_second RECLASSIFIED measured -> authored. The value does not move; the label was false. The Decoder withdrew their guest-frame-rate finding the same day they published it, and this file carried `kind: measured` on its strength. Three routes now disagree -- withdrawn movie cadence 60, vblank ~120, title-plate-delay ~56 -- and at most one is right. 60 is kept, and not as a coin toss: the one leg of this file's own reasoning that never touched a frame count still brackets it. The transition quad is declared black for 12 units and the capture measured 0.14-0.30 s, i.e. 40-86 units/s. 60 sits inside; 120 does not; ~56 is 7 % away and inside the same bracket. 🔴 audit-kinds caught my first attempt at this, DANGLING: I cited guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md, which is on their branch and not in my checkout -- citing a document I cannot read. The check doing exactly its job. The withdrawal is now named in prose and labelled as coming from their message. 📌 Their method note is worth more than the number and is recorded in the file: their pre-registration named three ways the ruler could lie and guarded two; the third occurred, and a PERFECT 1.0000 is precisely what it produces. A clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is not confirmation -- the cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature. Same family as this port's non-inverting latch check, which passed for the wrong reason until its control failed. Not settled: finding 3 still has no surviving cause; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual against the additive-capable reference; pgloading_loop5's own residual; and the allowance still waits on its grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
94e44b5ba4 |
port: the additive-capable reference collapses the divergence 6x, measured at the tag
The Decoder taught `ui_layout::blit` the additive blend at formats-pin-2026-09-01b, on the argument this port made: the comparison was structurally incapable, and the refutation keeping additive out was ⟨render-vs-capture⟩ -- that renderer disagreeing with itself while it had a stale keyframe association, no leaf geometry and no rotation. MEASURED WITHOUT PULLING THEIR BRANCH INTO MINE: a detached worktree at the tag, sylpheed-cli built there, verify-screen pointed at it through SYLPHEED_CLI. My branch is untouched and the reference on `main` is unchanged. Pre-registered: the diffs caused by the gap should collapse, and whatever remains is a different cause. main_menu 7.2580 max 105 -> 1.2068 max 28 6.0x main_menu_jp 7.3440 max 108 -> 1.2111 max 31 6.1x extras 6.9757 max 113 -> 1.0229 max 28 6.8x extras_jp 7.0734 max 115 -> 1.0255 max 30 6.9x title 1.0335 max 88 -> 0.5685 max 41 1.8x title_jp 4.4944 max 233 -> 2.8225 max 233 1.6x build_12/15 0.0772 max 60 -> 0.0463 max 17 1.7x build_00/01 0.0676 max 60 -> 0.0366 max 4 DIFFERS -> OK build_00 and build_01 stop differing entirely, over3 3422 -> 0. And the twins agree to a third of a percent: main_menu 1.2068 vs main_menu_jp 1.2111 (0.36 %), extras 1.0229 vs extras_jp 1.0255 (0.25 %). Under the name-keyed map those pairs were 4.1x and 7.8x apart. Nothing was fitted -- they converged once when the PORT took the decoded field and again now that the REFERENCE draws the same blend. The residual is smaller and its causes are the documented ones: title_jp 2.82 is the --pose=rest sparkle handling, title 0.57 the ptloop sweep phase, both untouched by any of this. main_menu/extras and twins sit at ~1.0-1.2 max ~28-31, new and undiagnosed -- additive was the dominant cause, not the only one. And build_12/15 do NOT return to their pre-change 0.0368, so pgloading_loop5 carries a small residual of its own beyond the blend. Recorded, not chased. 🔴 THE ALLOWANCE SHOULD NARROW AND HAS NOT, ON PURPOSE. Its justification is gone, but check-all builds the reference from the WORKSPACE crate and the additive path is at a tag, not on `main`. Narrowing now would turn check-all red against a reference that still cannot draw additive -- a wall of failures meaning one thing, which is the defect the display guard exists to prevent. The trigger is written into the script so it does not rot: when `grep -q additive crates/sylpheed-formats/src/ui_layout.rs` succeeds, drop the export-derived clause and keep the two named legacy rows. The set that should then differ is measured above. H5 confirmed from the other side. And a trap worth carrying: the Decoder nearly reported my H5 claim as a contradiction because `loop5` is not a sprite -- it is an ELEMENT, pgloading_loop5.rat, resolving to sprite pgloading_ring.t32. Any census keyed by sprite name will miss it. Not settled: the ~1.0-1.2 residual on the menus; pgloading_loop5's own residual; finding 3, where the Decoder is taking the clock origin; and the 8 claims R1 has re-opened against ⟨render-vs-capture⟩, including BOTH legs of the rest() pair that this port's settle behaviour rests on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c01580740e |
port: my pteff10 counter-example failed, H5 closes as additive, and I broke my own allowance
Three things, and the first is the one worth reading. ❌ MY COUNTER-EXAMPLE FAILED. I reported pteff10 as a possible counter-example to the ✅ DECODED blend bit. It is not: the oracle measures it ADDITIVE on main_menu in all three menu sessions, every frame, entry 5 of blend-bit-vs-oracle.txt. My premise was a stale COVERAGE TABLE of theirs, sitting upstream of its own correction. I inferred "their log does not cover this element" from a summary and called it a contradiction with a capture. The lesson is not that their table was stale -- it is that I treated a summary as the log, having spent three iterations insisting that other people quote instruments rather than conclusions. Their explanation made a prediction, so I checked it rather than accepting it: if additive and alpha-over nearly coincide on a dim glow, why did my score move 20 %? Diffing the two renders, where pteff10's blend is the only change: identical 373 588 px (40.5 %) differing > 3 330 794 px (35.9 %) MAX difference 32 levels pixels >= 60: 0 Their explanation holds and my scepticism does not. Nothing moves more than 32/255. What moved the RMSE is AREA. 📌 And that generalises past this row: raw-rmse is AREA-WEIGHTED, so a shallow change over a third of the frame moves it far more than a deep change over a few hundred pixels, and the number alone cannot say which you have. 10.88 -> 13.02 reads like a serious regression and is invisible to an eye. Any verify-capture row that moves should be asked "broad or deep?" first; it costs one histogram. I did NOT take their suggestion to exclude the element from the metric. The reason to exclude -- "the metric cannot distinguish these" -- is now measured to be false; it distinguishes them fine and weights them by area. Excluding would remove the only signal that would fire if the bit were wrong elsewhere. ✅ H5 CLOSES, as a side effect. pgloading_loop5 -- the element I had localised all 951 differing pixels to -- carries blend_additive, and ui_layout.rs has no additive path, so the reference cannot reproduce that draw by construction. build_00/build_01 agreed only because they never draw it; with the decoded field they gained loop1/loop4 additive and now differ too, as predicted. 🟢 The strongest corroboration of the decoded field came unfitted, from the rows I was not looking at. EN/JP twins were 4.1x and 7.8x apart under the name-keyed map and are now 1.1 % and 1.3 % apart (main_menu 7.26 vs 7.34, extras 6.98 vs 7.07). A disc-wide field predicts locale twins render identically; a screen-name map cannot. That prediction was not available to me before the swap. 🔴 AND I BROKE MY OWN ALLOWANCE, silently, one iteration after building it. check-all's verify-screen allowance derived from authored/rendering.json's additive_elements -- the key I deleted last commit -- so it evaluated to EMPTY and would have failed six rows for no reason anyone could read off the output. Caught by going to look, not by the check. A derived allowance is only as durable as the thing it derives from, and I pointed this one at a file I then emptied. It now derives from the EXPORT. ⚠️ That is LOOSER and the cost is stated: 12 of 16 screens qualify and verify-screen goes fully green. Measured after the swap the two sets line up exactly -- all 10 differing screens have a drawn additive element, all 6 agreeing screens have none -- but a screen differing for some OTHER reason would now be excused. 📌 The real fix is not here: verify-screen compares two renderers and one cannot express a blend the disc declares. Giving ui_layout.rs an additive path would make it meaningful again. PROPOSED, not done -- their crate, and their refutation of additive predates the measurement that overturned it. Not settled: finding 3, which now has no surviving named cause at all -- the Decoder is taking the clock origin, on the grounds that every measurement either of us has made is a DIFFERENCE and a difference cannot detect a common offset. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
70799488fe |
port: delete the authored blend map for the decoded field, and find a counter-example doing it
PORT-MISSION §3: "When the RE agent later decodes something you had authored, delete the authored entry and let the exporter emit it. That deletion is the measure of progress." This is that deletion. authored/rendering.json's `additive_elements` -- a per-screen list transcribed from the Decoder's per-draw RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log -- is gone. The exporter emits `blend_additive` per element and per nested focus/leaf element from `T8aD +0x04` bit 0x02, and ScreenView reads it there. Both accessor spellings are needed: `ptbtn00f.t32` is in build.sprites while no element carries it as `sprite`, and it is the sharp case -- the plate alpha-over, its own glow additive, adjacent draws on one screen. CHECKED BEFORE THE SWAP, and the map turned out to be a SUBSET, not the answer: 15 elements it called additive the disc agrees with, ZERO contradictions, and 17 MORE the disc marks that it did not. Those include the sweep LEAVES (draw_leaf_for means pteff03/pteff03a are what reach the screen while the map listed their parents) and TWELVE on `title`, where the map was deliberately empty -- so the port has been drawing every title effect with the wrong blend. H6 closes with no capture at all: the JP asymmetry was an artefact of a NAME-KEYED map, and the bit is on the disc for every screen at once. 🔴 AND IT INTRODUCED A REGRESSION, WHICH IS REPORTED, NOT HIDDEN. Against the oracle captures on the GPU: main_menu 10.88 -> 13.02, main_menu_options 11.56 -> 13.57. Deterministic to the digit over three runs, so not sampling noise. Isolated to ONE element, with a control: - main_menu's only newly-additive top-level element is pteff10; - extras gained none and did not move -- the same change on a screen with nothing new moves nothing; - the leaf rule was disabled separately and main_menu stayed at 13.02, so pteff03/pteff03a are NOT the cause. That prediction of mine failed; the rule is restored, being provably neutral here; - title did not move despite twelve newly-additive elements, consistent with verify-capture posing at settle t=198 where those quads are transparent. That is a potential COUNTER-EXAMPLE to a ✅ DECODED claim, and it is a sharp question rather than a guess: their own map lists pteff10 additive on `extras` and not on `main_menu`, and they logged BOTH screens. Asked in BLOCKED.md H6. Shipped anyway, for reasons stated rather than assumed: +2.14 is inside the harness's own ±3.78 capture-phase term for that screen and cannot adjudicate a disc fact; the decoded source is far better evidenced (35 elements, zero errors, out-of-sample prediction 3 of 16); and fitting an exception for one element would put an authored entry back to make one number smaller, which is the move this project keeps having to undo. It is a KNOWN regression, not an unnoticed one. Also settled this iteration, for the Decoder's open question: the port FADES the plate, it does not pop it. Frozen sweep of the plate region -- 210u 0.1457, 216u 0.1573, 222u 0.1727, 228u 0.1900, 236u 0.2142 -- a clean monotone ramp across the declared 214->236. So t=236 is the port's COMPLETION, not its onset, and the 0.367 s "late plus a pop" reading does not apply. Not settled: whether pteff10 has a counter-example; H1's repeat half; the four red verify-screen rows; and finding 3, which still has no cause now that units/s is settled at 60. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
7dd754f8e4 |
port: bump the formats pin to formats-pin-2026-09-01 for the blend accessors
What I wanted from the new state: `ui_layout::sprite_blend_additive` and its three siblings, which expose `T8aD +0x04` bit 0x02 -- the decoded blend mode. Until this tag, `Element` surfaced `kind` (+40), `parent`, pivot, keyframes and `focus_link`, all from the RATC record, and nothing reached the sprite's own header. That is why the port has been carrying an authored additive map keyed by SCREEN NAME, transcribed from the Decoder's per-draw RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log, which cannot answer for a screen nobody drove the game to -- the Japanese menus being the case that raised it. Both spellings are needed, not one: `sprite_blend_additive` takes an &Element, and `blend_additive_by_name` takes a sprite name, because a button's focused variant is reached through focus_link and `ptbtn00f.t32` is in build.sprites while no element carries it as `sprite`. That is exactly the sharp case in my own map -- press_start's only additive entry IS ptbtn00f. Pin bumped as its own commit, per PORT-MISSION §2. Nothing else in this commit; the exporter does not read the new accessors yet. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
7c8e4a863a |
port: adopt the game's 61% stick threshold, and find my verify-screen numbers were llvmpipe-specific
Two things, and both are about a hidden parameter nobody was recording. 1. THE STICK THRESHOLD IS DECODED NOW, and it replaces an authored value. The Decoder measured that the game digitises the left stick to four direction bits at 61 % deflection, so it never sees a velocity. Gamepad.ENTER moves 0.5 -> 0.61. The 0.5 was never a chosen value: it was a FLOOR, because Godot's `ui_*` action deadzone is 0.50 and the latch must not arm below it. Between 0.50 and 0.61 Godot reports a direction the real game does not, and at 0.5 this port stepped there. The mechanism also corroborates the human's latch fix rather than merely agreeing with it: a control that digitises to bits cannot express a rate, so "one step per deflection" is what the hardware layer CAN produce. ⚠️ The 0.11 hysteresis gap stays AUTHORED -- nothing says the game has hysteresis at all. And a human chose 0.5, so this changes feel: revert the one constant if 0.61 reads as needing too much push. 🔴 AND THE CONTROL CAUGHT MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT ASSERTING IT. I added the new device-level row as subject "latch", and `verify-input --control` failed immediately with "a check did not invert -- it is not testing what it claims to test". It was right: removing the latch does not remove the THRESHOLD, the unlatched path tests `>= Gamepad.ENTER` too, so 0.55 counts 0 either way and the row could never invert. It is a NEGATIVE, and its positive control is the 0.70 row on the same shape. Reclassified. That also exposed a smaller thing: ok()'s negative branch HARDCODED "positive control is the stick row", so a second negative would have borrowed someone else's green line. It now takes the control's name, defaulting to the original text so the d-pad row is unchanged. ✅ I never consumed the pad bit table they have just corrected -- checked by grep over port/, authored/ and tools/port/, not remembered. 2. MY verify-screen NUMBERS WERE llvmpipe-SPECIFIC, and the prediction failed. Pre-registered: both renderers blend in encoded 8-bit space, so the diffs should be identical or within 1 level on the GPU. They are not -- every mean rose 3-35 %: title 0.4431 -> 0.5936, main_menu 3.9363 -> 4.1449, extras 6.7422 -> 6.9757, title_jp 2.7715 -> 2.9448, main_menu_jp 0.7885 -> 1.0157, extras_jp 0.6592 -> 0.8906, build_12/15 0.0368 -> 0.0454. But the MAXIMA are unchanged -- 41, 97, 113, 233, 17 identical, 26 -> 27 on one row. That is a rounding population growing, not content moving: two rasterisers round the last bit of a blend differently while the elements that genuinely differ do not move. Survives: the additive diagnosis, because it rests on an ORDERING and the ordering holds (9 elements > 5 > 0); the pgloading_loop5 localisation; the build_00/01 agreement; the derived allowance, same four failing rows. Does not, and is now labelled: the histogram (53 % within 1 level, 16 844 over 40); every absolute mean; and the RMSE-vs-capture pair 3151.96 / 3769.61 -- that ORDERING claim is not re-derived on the GPU and is not claimed until it is. The rule this earns: a renderer comparison carries its RASTERISER as a hidden parameter. Nothing here recorded which one produced a diff, and for months there was only one so it never mattered. Same discipline TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION already demands for capture rate, applied to what rasterises rather than what clocks. Not settled: H1's repeat half; H6's +0x04 exposure; the four red verify-screen rows; whether the port is still nearer the capture than the reference on the GPU. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
ba3f490c67 |
port: P7's gate has an artifact, and the GPU kills my finding-4 candidate outright
Three things this iteration, and the middle one is the human's doing. P7 -- GATE MET, with an artifact. The path had been wired for some time (then_video S00A, skipped_chain, after_video -> title, and S00A.ogv in the export) and NOBODY HAD RUN IT. A milestone is done when its artifact exists, not when the wiring reads correctly. Pre-registered: unskipped, S00A is 93.78 s of media, so it should end on its own at ~94 s and hand off to title. Measured: video ended at 94.13 s -- +0.35 s, 0.4 % -- then -> title, plate raised, script complete at 96.83 s. Both predictions held. docs/port/p7-gate.md. And it genuinely decodes, checked because "ends at the right time" does not prove it: 45 frames in a 2.03 s window, 244 in an 18.91 s one. Scales with the window, sub-linearly, at the software fill ceiling -- those two runs predate the GPU. The counts are upper bounds and the port says so itself. Free corroboration of the fill-rate finding, from a direction it was not designed for: the unskipped run reports main_menu at 60.3 fps for 94 s, because the screen never changes during a movie. Same process, same container, same screen: 60.3 fps with one full-screen video texture on top, 9.7 fps drawing the menu's five additive full-screen quads. ❌ THE FINDING-4 FRAME-RATE CANDIDATE IS DEAD, tested rather than argued away. The human activated a hardware GPU in both containers; Godot takes it with no change on our side (NVIDIA GTX 1070 Ti, Vulkan 1.4.312, Forward+): publisher_logo 17.3-25.0 -> 69.4 fps developer_logos 16.7-22.8 -> 69.1 title 12.7-17.2 -> 61.1 main_menu 9.7 -> 59.6 Pre-registered that 5-7 full-screen textured quads at 720p is trivial for that card and the fade would get its full 45 steps. At 69 fps the 45-unit build-in gets 52 drawn steps and the companion glow's 15-unit rise gets 17 -- MORE frames than declared units, so every declared alpha is drawn and the quantisation is absent rather than reduced. So every candidate for finding 4 is now dead: keyframes vindicated against the vertex stream, companion quads drawn, blend space matching, settled pose at 0.01 %, no post-process pass, and the frame rate drawing every declared step. The port has nothing left that is KNOWN to be wrong about the splashes -- which is a statement about our knowledge, not about the port. The human saw something and nothing we can measure reproduces it. The next play-test is now the highest-value thing on this focus, and the rate line will say 60-something. One figure did not improve: main_menu's worst gap is 117 ms on the GPU against 150 ms on llvmpipe, essentially unchanged while the mean improved 6x. A hitch that survives a 6x fill speed-up is not fill. Likely first-frame cost, STATED AS UNTESTED, recorded rather than chased. check-all now asserts the display before any Godot step. Xvfb does not survive a container restart and LEAVES ITS SOCKET BEHIND, so Godot reports "X11 Display is not available", falls back to Wayland, fails that too, and exits non-zero -- and every Godot-backed step would have gone red for that one reason. Cost me one run before I noticed. Checked with xdpyinfo rather than by looking for the socket, because the stale socket is what makes it confusing. Also recorded from the P7 run, neither chased: Godot reports 4 leaked ObjectDB instances at exit on that path, and the menu bed keeps playing under the movie (already an open ask -- does the menu music duck?). Not settled: the 117 ms menu hitch; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (with the Decoder); the four red verify-screen rows; and what the human actually saw. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
a764421b13 | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
4be90c2805 |
port: the frame rate is llvmpipe, not our draw path -- and my finding-4 candidate is downgraded
Last iteration left "is 9.7 fps llvmpipe or something in our draw path" open after publishing a candidate cause off it. That is not a question to leave open, so this iteration is the control. Pre-registered: if the rasteriser is the limit, a near-empty scene in the same container also runs at 10-25 fps; if our draw path is, it runs far faster, take >100 fps as the discriminator. empty 161.6 fps The engine loop, viewport and present path are not the limit, by 16x over the menu. 🔴 AND MY FIRST CONTROL WAS NOT A CONTROL. Its fill modes drew UNTEXTURED rects while every element the port draws is a texture, so it bounded nothing -- and it showed: the splashes were achieving ~21 Mpx/s against that control's ~50, which read as the port being mysteriously slow and was the control being mysteriously fast. With a matched textured mode: empty 161.6 | fill3 31.5 | tex3 23.9 | fill7 12.7 | tex7 11.2 and every port screen lands inside the bracket, ordered by large-quad count: publisher (1 quad) 17.3-25.0 ~ tex3; developer (1) 16.7-22.8 ~ tex3; title (6) 12.7-17.2 between; main_menu (5) 9.7 ~ tex7's 11.2. The port draws large textured alpha quads on a software rasteriser at exactly the rate a software rasteriser draws them. ⚠️ The control's own spread is 1.75x between runs (fill3 measured 18.0 once and 31.5 once), so the absolute figures are noise-dominated and only the ORDERING and the BRACKET are load-invariant. That is what the conclusion rests on -- TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION §3, prefer the quantities with no phase. 🔴 SO MY OWN CANDIDATE FOR FINDING 4 IS DOWNGRADED, AND THIS SAYS SO PLAINLY. Last iteration called the frame rate "the first candidate for finding 4 that is not already dead". The quantisation argument still holds -- a fade drawn in four steps is not a fade drawn in fifteen -- but it only bites at these rates, and these rates are a property of software rasterisation in this container. Five to seven full-screen quads at 720p is nothing to a GPU. Unless the human ran the port software-rendered, this is not what they saw, and EVERY candidate for finding 4 is now dead or near-dead. Written as a dead end rather than left standing as a lead. Leaving a plausible-sounding cause up after its own control has undercut it is exactly how "close but not right" got explained four different wrong ways. The one thing that would revive it costs the human nothing: the rate line prints on every boot now, so their next run answers it. What the port does NOT need, established rather than assumed: no draw-path optimisation (161.6 fps empty, screens on the fill curve where their quad counts put them), no texture caching (already at load_screen), no max_fps or vsync change (would not raise the rate here, and is a presentation decision not a defect). Not settled: what rate the human's machine manages -- now the only open half of a candidate I have otherwise talked myself out of; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (with the Decoder); the four red verify-screen rows. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
e1749c83e1 |
docker: auto-restart, and resume the session the agent was actually in
Some checks failed
The decoder died mid-task and it took four separate findings to explain, each of which read as something else: 1. OOM-KILLED, REPORTED AS A CLEAN EXIT. `OOMKilled: true` with **ExitCode 0**. So `--restart on-failure` would treat a memory kill as a successful finish and leave the agent down -- the policy has to be `unless-stopped`. 2. THE JOB CAP WAS SET AND THEN REMOVED THREE LINES LATER. build-reborn has always exported CARGO_BUILD_JOBS, but a raw `cargo test --release -p sylpheed-formats` never reaches the wrapper. Adding `-e CARGO_BUILD_JOBS` to the launcher did not help either: the entrypoint recomputes and exports over it unconditionally. An explicit value now wins, and says so in the log. 3. THE MEMORY CONSTANT WAS WRONG. `mem_gib * 2 / 3` assumes ~1.5 GB per job; release rustc on this workspace needs ~2 GB, and 4 jobs in 6 GB is what died. Divisor is now 2. 4. `--continue` CANNOT RESUME AN ABRUPT DEATH, which is the only kind we get. It resolves through ~/.claude.json's per-project `history`/`lastSessionId`, and MEASURED mid-session both are None -- they are written at a graceful shutdown. A killed container never writes them, so `--continue` answered "No conversation found to continue" with 33 MB of transcripts in the volume beside it. Persisting .claude.json did not help, because the fields were never populated in the first place; that attempt is removed rather than left in looking useful. The TRANSCRIPTS are durable and named by session id, so the entrypoint reads the id off the newest one for its cwd and passes `--resume <id>`. Verified on both agents: each reattached to its exact prior session and appended to the same file rather than opening a new one. The /loop prompt is still passed alongside `--resume`, so the loop is RE-ARMED rather than merely restored -- a resumed conversation with no wake-up scheduled answers once and stops, which looks like resuming and is not. Restarting into the same death is guarded at the other end: a start less than 120 s after the previous one begins FRESH instead of continuing back into whatever killed it. That fired correctly during this work. On resume the agent is told it was restarted, that its in-progress work is uncommitted in the tree, that any build or capture it had running did not finish and its absence is not a result, and which wrapper to prefer over a raw release build. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
170d255e82 |
port: the port never reported its own frame rate, and the menu draws at 9.7 fps
TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION §1 requires every instrument to state its achieved rate against its requested one. That has been applied to --film (which I fixed for exactly this), to the Decoder's harnesses and to the oracle. It had never once been applied to the thing being shipped. The port had no idea what rate it drew at and no way to say. It matters now because the splashes are the focus and the open complaint is that ours is LESS PRONOUNCED than the game's. A fade drawn in 45 frames and the same fade drawn in 12 are different animations, and nothing here could tell them apart. boot.gd now counts frames per screen and reports at every boot transition, at the end of the boot, and at every menu arrival. `worst gap` sits beside the mean because a hitch is what reads as wrong and a mean hides one by construction. Measured in this container, three boots: publisher_logo 17.3 / 19.6 / 25.0 fps worst gap 100-115 ms developer_logos 16.7 / 21.9 / 22.8 fps worst gap 103-138 ms title 17.2 / 14.2 / 12.7 fps worst gap 150 ms, all three main_menu 9.7 fps worst gap 150 ms 🟡 A LIVE CANDIDATE FOR PLAY-TEST FINDING 4, and the first one that is not dead. The timeline is delta-driven so durations stay correct at any rate; what changes is how many alphas the fade is DRAWN at. At the measured rates the 45-unit build-in gets 12-17 distinct alphas instead of 45, and the pre-blurred companion glow -- the thing that IS the splash's blur -- rises over 15 units and is drawn at FOUR TO SIX steps instead of fifteen. ⚠️ It is a candidate, not a cause: this is llvmpipe under Xvfb and not the human's hardware. The point is that the line now prints on every boot, so the next play-test answers it for free. Every other candidate for finding 4 is already dead -- keyframes vindicated against the vertex stream, companion quads drawn, blend space matching, settled pose at 0.01 % against the capture, no post-process pass to add. ✅ And nothing published is invalidated, which was worth checking rather than assuming: every timing result here comes from `_elapsed` (+= delta) or `time_units` (the same sum scaled), so all are correct at any frame rate. The splash dwells were measured across runs whose rates differed by 2x and agreed to ±0.03 s. Had the timeline been frame-counted, every number in this corpus would have been wrong by a factor that changed between runs -- which is precisely the failure the Decoder found in the emulator's rate and withdrew a finding over. Two defects in the instrument itself, both caught and fixed before it was trusted: - its first version printed "-9223372036854775808 requested". DisplayServer.screen_get_refresh_rate() returns a FLOAT and is -1.0 when the display cannot say, which Xvfb cannot, and %d underflows to INT64_MIN. It now names the cap or says `uncapped`. - it was BOOT-ONLY and said so nowhere -- `--menu` arrives through _menu_arrive, not _advance, so the mode a human spends time in reported nothing. That is the shape this port keeps finding in other people's work, and it lasted one measurement here. Refutation attempt: I checked whether the port re-decodes PNGs per frame, which would have been a real defect. It does not -- _load_textures caches at load_screen. Hypothesis dead, cheaply, and recorded. Not settled: what rate the human's machine manages; whether 9.7 fps on the menu is llvmpipe or something in our draw path; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (the Decoder is taking it this iteration). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
977965e92d |
port: the splash rate is withdrawn, and timing the shipping boot caught a why describing code we do not have
H7 closed: the Decoder withdrew the per-GamePart rate the same day (
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
94c38cb384 |
port: refuse the splash rate -- a 160-unit hold cannot outlast the 210-unit group containing it
The Decoder proposes a per-screen rate: ~57 units/s for the title, ~35-40 for the splashes, on the ground that a splash at 60 runs 1.5-1.7x too fast. That would be a timeline cause for the human's finding 4, so it matters. THE PORT DID NOT MOVE, and this is why. The 160-unit hold is identifiable: exactly one interval in either splash is 160 units, the DEVELOPER splash's a=255 plateau at t=30..190, inside its declared group t=0..210. So: the 160-unit hold measured 4.514 guest s (1 run) -> 35.4 units/s the 210-unit group AROUND IT measured 3.37/3.50/3.51 s (3 cold boots) -> 60.7 A sub-interval cannot outlast the interval containing it. That is not two methods disagreeing about a rate, it is arithmetic, and one of the two is wrong. Both dwell measurements corroborate ~60 on exactly the two screens now put at 35-39: publisher 255 units in 4.30/4.60/4.37 = 57.7, developer 210 units in 3.37/3.50/3.51 = 60.7, the developer agreeing with its declared value to 1.1 % and two of its runs to 0.3 %. At 35.4 the declared groups would run 5.93 s and 7.20 s -- each splash ~70 % longer than three cold boots measured it. The one escape route is named rather than dismissed: the new figure is in GUEST seconds and the corpus in wall-clock. The known gap between those is Canary at ~28.1 fps against 30, which is 6 % and the wrong direction to close 1.7x. It is their instrument and their clock, so it is asked (H7), not ruled out. ⚠️ The STRUCTURAL claim may still be right -- one rate covering every screen is what is under challenge, and the title's 56.8 does sit ~5 % off the splashes' 58-61. If a per-screen rate is real the port wants the MECHANISM, a field or a GamePart constant, not two authored numbers. That is their next item. Recorded in authored/timing.json so the next iteration does not quietly adopt it, with an explicit instruction not to split the difference: averaging two measurements that cannot both be true is not a third measurement. Also this iteration: H6 -- answered in principle, blocked in practice. They are right that the blend is a decoded disc field (T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02) and that deriving beats transcribing, which would delete an authored entry. But sylpheed-formats does not EXPOSE +0x04 -- Element surfaces kind (+40), parent (+32), pivot, keyframes, focus_link -- and sylpheed-export consumes formats by git TAG, not workspace path, so I cannot reach the parser. Asked: surface the word and tag it. 🔴 And a negative worth having, since it is the obvious thing to try: kind_raw in this export is NOT that field. Its bit 0x2 against the additive map over four screens is ANTI-correlated -- 0 of 14 mapped elements have it set and 9 unmapped ones do. Anyone reaching for `kind_raw & 2` gets the additive set exactly inverted. H5 -- closed. My shared-element hypothesis is refuted: build_12 and build_15 have identical declaration bodies, so identical statistics are one fact. The pgloading_loop5 localisation stands and is the better answer. ✅ And the good news, recorded where the splash work lives: "the declared keyframe timeline reproduces the captured splash" settles in favour of the timeline -- 50 captured alphas, worst error one level in 255, no renderer in the chain. The port's splash keyframes were never the defect. Which leaves the RATE as the remaining candidate for what the human saw, and the rate is what this commit declines to change. Not settled: which of the two splash measurements survives; where a per-screen rate would come from; the +0x04 exposure; H1 (key repeat). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
0a9bf4e16a |
port: H5 localises to one element, and the rotation rule that explained 14 of 16 is refuted
check-all's four remaining red rows. What I established, and two hypotheses that died on the way -- the second is the one worth reading. ✅ build_12 / build_15 are ONE ELEMENT. All 951 differing pixels lie inside pgloading_loop5 (pgloading_ring.png, 333x276 at [1,444]) and the diff's own bbox x 69..301 y 478..710 sits entirely within it. That also answers, with no rule at all, why build_00 and build_01 AGREE: the port's own draw log says they draw 7 elements to build_12's 10, and pgloading_loop5 is one of the three they never draw. The loading screens that agree are the ones that never draw the element the disagreement is in. 🔴 REFUTED, and it looked strong. ui_layout.rs:86 states in its own words that "rotation_deg is decoded but NOT rendered", and the port does render it. A census over all sixteen exported screens gave: every screen with a non-zero rest rotation DIFFERS, every screen without agrees -- 6 of 6 both ways, including both legacy rows. Widening it to any rotating element (rest rotation OR a two-keyframe 360 spinner at any depth) breaks it: build_00 and build_01 carry two spinners each, the port draws both, and they agree with the reference. A rule that holds on 14 of 16 and fails on the two cases nobody had looked at is a rule fitted to the rows it was built from. Recorded rather than deleted, because the ui_layout.rs:86 comment is exactly what the next reader will find. 🟡 main_menu_jp / extras_jp carry the same sweep leaves -- ptloop01/pteff03 at rot 30, ptloop02/pteff03a at rot -45 -- whose phase residual is the reason already named for `title`, and their means (0.79, 0.66) sit with title's 0.44 rather than their EN twins' 3.94 and 6.74. Consistent with, not established: nobody has isolated those leaves on those screens. 🔴 And an asymmetry this exposed, now DECLARED rather than left silent. main_menu_jp contains exactly the six elements main_menu marks additive, and extras_jp all nine of extras'. The map is keyed by screen name and the Decoder's RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log was taken on the ENGLISH screens, so the port draws them additive on EN and alpha-over on JP -- asserting by omission that the JP build blends differently, which is the LESS likely possibility. Both options assert something unmeasured; only one of them was visible. The map is NOT extended (that would extrapolate a measurement onto a build nobody drove to) and the claim is instead written into authored/rendering.json's additive_elements_why, plus a low-priority ask H6 that says out loud it may not be worth a boot -- MISSION §7 puts JP out of scope and it costs two rows. check-all stays red on the same four. Nothing was excused. Not settled: why the two renderers disagree on pgloading_loop5 specifically; the JP blend question; H1 (key repeat); whether the splashes tick at the title's rate. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
26cf6ecac5 |
port: H3 closes with every named cause dead, and the verify-screen rows are ADDITIVE, not gamma
Three answers landed from the Decoder in one iteration and two of them refuted
things -- one theirs, one mine.
H3 -- CLOSED, and deliberately not closed green. The rate is measured at 56.8
units per guest second (control 1.15 %, two elements agreeing at one clock).
30 and 120 are both excluded. At 56.8 the plate's t=236 lands at 4.15 s against
this port's 3.93 s, so the port is fractionally EARLY. With rest.t, the clock
origin and the anchor already eliminated, ALL FOUR named causes are now dead and
the human's observation is unattributed. Written down that way rather than
letting H3 go quiet: the strongest remaining candidate is that A was unbound on
the play-test build, so that human could not skip the 137 s intro, and the run
they judged is not the run any of these measurements describes.
`units = 2 x frames` is dead as a route -- the same animation takes 21 labels in
one capture and 33 in another. Audited: this port never used it. boot.gd
integrates `delta * units_per_second`, so the retirement cost authored/timing.json
a JUSTIFICATION and not a behaviour, and I have recorded which leg died and
which survived. The surviving leg has no frames in the chain: 12 declared units
against a 0.14-0.30 s measured black plateau = 40-86 units/s, which excludes 120
on its own. 60 is KEPT -- 56.8 is 5.6 % away against ~5 % quantisation.
H4 -- ANSWERED, and MY PREMISE WAS WRONG. I reported the verify-screen rows as a
blend-SPACE divergence. The transfer curve I built for that was a mean per
reference-value bucket over a BIMODAL population -- 53 % of pixels within 1 level
and 16 844 differing by 40+ -- and the gamma shape was an artefact of the
binning. A mean over a mixed population is not a transfer function.
All three renderers blend in the encoded space:
game k_8_8_8_8 on 2402/2402 and 33779/33791 draws, _GAMMA zero times
Godot measured with a pre-registered control -- alphas 64/128/192 render
64/128/192 exactly; linear-then-re-encode excluded by 33-74 levels
reference integer math straight on 8-bit values, no linearisation
The real cause is ADDITIVE. The port draws 5 elements additive on main_menu and
9 on extras, transcribed from the Decoder's per-draw RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log off the
running game; ui_layout.rs has exactly two blend sites, both alpha-over, and line
1169 records that it tried additive and refuted it from its own composite
metrics. The two renderers disagree on purpose, and the disagreement tracks the
set size: 9 -> 6.74, 5 -> 3.94, 0 -> ~0.7. That ordering was not fitted; the
additive map predates this comparison.
check-all: the allowance is now DERIVED from authored/rendering.json's additive
set plus the two legacy rows, instead of a literal list. A screen is excused
BECAUSE it has additive elements the reference cannot draw; one that differs
without them still fails, which a list could not express. Verified against the
last run's set: main_menu and extras pass, main_menu_jp, extras_jp, build_12 and
build_15 still FAIL. check-all stays red on those four and they are H5 -- not
diagnosed, not excused. build_12 and build_15 report byte-identical statistics,
which points at one shared element rather than two coincidences.
Refutation attempts: the hit this iteration is against my own page again -- the
blend-space diagnosis, killed by a control I ran on my own renderer. The
Decoder's encoded-space finding and their 56.8 both survived the only checks I
could make: my control reproduces their space independently, and their rate is
consistent with authored/timing.json's frame-free leg.
Not settled: H5's four rows; whether the splashes tick at the title's rate (they
are a different GamePart); H1 (key repeat); what the human actually saw.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
da7864e499 |
port: both of my H3 conclusions were wrong, and check-all stays red on a sixth-screen divergence
The Decoder answered H3 in both halves (
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6eccfa84d8 |
port: the plate's lateness is the unit, not our clock -- and the splash blur is an asset we already draw
H3, the PRESS (A) plate. Established which half it is, as the brief asked, and
the answer moved once during the iteration -- both readings are recorded because
the first one was confident and wrong.
Eliminated, ours:
rest.t not in the causal path. The plate's ARRIVAL is a declared keyframe
(transparent to t=214, opaque at t=236); rest.t=236 only picks
where `holding` parks it, and 236 is that ramp's own peak.
clock origin the two builds share one clock exactly -- 85 of 85 filmed title
frames have view_units == overlay_units to 3 dp.
NOT eliminated, the Decoder's: the unit->seconds constant. I first ruled it out
"by sign" using the emulator's 28.1 fps presentation rate. That conflates a
wall-clock conversion with units-per-game-frame; the correction is written down
rather than edited away. The Decoder's splash draw capture (
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6db49f5a24 | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/human/r1-retro-tick' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
e7967cc375 | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
MechaCat02
|
1af103d9b9 |
agents: point each brief at its human branch, to merge on the first iteration
Some checks failed
Both are pushed. The decoder's carries the R1 register reclassification and tools/stale-instrument; the port's carries the two input fixes, verify-input and BLOCKED H1-H3. Each branches from that agent's own tip, so it is a fast-forward on the line they are already on -- and the port must merge before touching input or it will re-derive a fix that is already asserted. |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
b8388c1501 |
port: record H3 -- the PRESS (A) plate arrives late, and which half is ours
Human play-test, 2026-09-01. Three candidate causes and they do not share an owner: the unit->seconds constant is the Decoder's, the clock origin and rest.t are ours. REFUTED.md records that believing rest.t already put a plate 3.97 s late once. Establish which half before asking. |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
aad3fb382e |
agents: the splashes exactly, and stop photographing a moving thing
Some checks failed
A human played the port on real hardware for the first time (2026-09-01) and
found four things. Two were port defects, fixed. Two are open and are now both
agents' focus: the PRESS (A) plate arrives late, and the splash fade/blur is
weaker than the game's.
Their verdict on method is the reason this is a brief change and not a ticket:
"the agents were essentially guessing and trying to copy what one would see,
but while they did get close it still is not quite right"
Close-but-not-right is the signature of reproducing APPEARANCE instead of
deriving MECHANISM. So the Decoder's focus block asks, in order: is there a
post-process pass at all, what is it, where do its parameters come from -- and
only then what curve. Both routes, dynamic (GPU state, shader constants, render
targets; add logging to Canary, it is theirs read-write) and static (.pe, the
DB, the paks), with each fact labelled by which produced it.
TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION.md is the other half, and it generalises past the
splashes. We have been photographing the game at time t, and t is never the
same twice: emulator speed varies with host load, Canary presents at ~28.1 fps,
the capture path costs a variable 0.1-10.8 s, and a long-lived x11grab stream
degrades and then freezes. The register already carries FOUR refutations of
exactly this shape. The replacement rule: record a film, not a photograph;
align by CONTENT, not by clock, and report the lag as a measurement rather than
minimising it away; prefer ordering, counts, durations and shape over any value
at a wall-clock instant; anchor on an event; report achieved fps against
requested fps.
Also into both briefs: the input set. The port had no joypad binding for (A) or
(B) and nobody noticed for a whole milestone, because --script sends
InputEventAction, which BYPASSES the input map -- so every check asserted the
code below the map and nothing about the map. The Decoder is asked to DECODE
the full set the game reads rather than discover it by pressing buttons; the
Port is told input is verified at the device level or not at all.
And both briefs now point at the R1 register reclassification, because two of
the ten re-opened entries land on this focus: "the declared keyframe timeline
reproduces the captured splash" is 🟡 our-reader, and the rest() pair is open
in BOTH directions -- while the two splashes are the only screens that reach
that fallback.
|
||
|
MechaCat02
|
b70b638cb4 |
port: Ⓐ was never bound to the pad, and the stick is not an edge
Both found by a human playing the port on a real controller. Both were
invisible to every check this port has, for one reason:
`--script` sends InputEventAction, which BYPASSES the input map.
So the harness asserted every line of code AFTER the map and nothing about the
map itself. Measured on this Godot, not remembered -- the remembered answer was
wrong:
ui_accept key:Enter, key:Kp Enter, key:Space <- no joypad at all
ui_cancel key:Escape <- no joypad at all
ui_up key:Up, JOYBTN:11, JOYAXIS:1- <- d-pad AND left stick
ui_down key:Down, JOYBTN:12, JOYAXIS:1+
Four actions worked on the pad and two did not, which presents as a broken
controller: navigation moved, Ⓐ skipped nothing and opened nothing. Godot
4.7.2 binds no joypad button to ui_accept or ui_cancel.
Gamepad.bind_missing() ADDS the two buttons to the built-in actions rather than
redefining them in project.godot, which would replace the built-ins wholesale
and drop the keyboard bindings silently.
Second defect, same blind spot: an InputEventAction is not an analog axis. The
left stick is bound to axis 1, and an axis is not an edge -- held at deflection
it emits an event per jitter, each reporting the action pressed. That was one
cursor step per jitter ("moves the cursor too fast"). The stick is now latched
to one step per deflection, with hysteresis so a stick resting near the
threshold does not chatter.
AUTHORED, and deliberately the conservative half: whether the game REPEATS a
held direction, and how fast, is an oracle question. One deflection one step
cannot run away and invents no rate. Logged as BLOCKED H1.
tools/port/verify-input asserts the map and the latch, with a control that
removes each check's OWN subject -- its first version inverted all nine
assertions when only two depended on the fixup, and reported seven correct
checks as broken. Three rows say plainly they are not controllable (they assert
Godot's own bindings) and one is a negative carrying a positive control (R4),
rather than faking an inversion for either.
Also logged BLOCKED H2, unguessed: the splash blur/fade-in is more pronounced
in the game than in the port. The port applies no blur at all. Noted there that
the two splashes are the only screens reaching the rest() plateau-less
fallback, which the R1 pass just re-opened in both directions.
|
||
|
MechaCat02
|
c2cbb277bb |
retro: tick §7.1 -- the R1 register reclassification is done, and what it found
Done 2026-09-01 by the human on the Decoder's tip (branch human/r1-register-reclassification): all 222 REFUTED.md entries carry an ⟨instrument⟩, ten moved ❌ -> 🟡, R1 is standing text in PROTOCOL.md, and tools/stale-instrument is the --stale query. Flagged here because one of the ten is load-bearing for the port: rest() decides the pose every plateau-less element is drawn at, and the question is open in BOTH directions -- each leg runs through our renderer. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6b713e8d14 |
port: confirm the plate quad by size, and record a frame-spacing discrepancy I cannot close
Read the Decoder's existing title draw log from the ref. The additive quad carries per-vertex alpha 68, 67, 56 across log frames 1, 2 and 4. Identification confirmed independently and without using their attribution: the quad is 537.6 x 75.6 px and ptbtn00f.png ships at 537 x 76. Their free check on my ramp holds -- all three alphas are at or below my declared peak of 80 and none equals a keyframe value, so the game interpolates rather than steps. Two independent decodes agreeing. The frame spacing does not fit. At HANDOFF Q1's 2 units per rendered frame my falling segment predicts 68, 64.5, 57.6 against observed 68, 67, 56; at 0.5 units it predicts 68, 67.2, 65.4. No constant rate fits both steps. Three candidates I cannot separate: my ramp is wrong somewhere, the log's frame numbering is captured rather than engine frames -- it skips from 2 to 4, so it is demonstrably not dense -- or emulator pacing varies. The middle is most likely and cheapest to check, and it is theirs. It does not disturb the ramp's shape or ceiling, which the alphas confirm. It disturbs only posing my renderer at their captured instant by stepping units, so the vertex alpha stays the right readout and a frame index would have been wrong. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
a68c8607c6 |
port: pre-register the plate composite test, and catch my own prediction being wrong
The Decoder's R2 note: alpha peaks at 80 of 255, so the composite difference is a small signal either way and the expected magnitude should be set before the test. Committed here before any capture exists. Rendering the same pose at peak alpha under both composites: 25 015 px footprint, mean |additive - alpha-over| 16.92 levels inside it, max 50, RMS over the whole frame 3.746. My first prediction was wrong and that is the useful part. The composites differ by exactly alpha*bg, which with mean background 94.78 predicts 29.73 levels. Measured 16.92. The formula uses the keyframe alpha and ignores that the sprite carries its own per-pixel alpha channel modulating it -- implied mean sprite alpha about 145/255. Caught only because the prediction was written down and disagreed with the render. The pre-registered test: additive is brighter than alpha-over at every footprint pixel in one direction, so the discriminator is regional SIGN over 25 015 pixels, not per-pixel magnitude. If the game is additive, rendering alpha-over must leave the footprint about 17 levels darker than the capture relative to the surrounding frame, and additive must leave no such regional bias. Neither bias refutes both and points at the ramp or the pose instead. Feasibility stated before asking for a run: as a whole-frame RMSE the difference is 3.746, below the title's own +/-5.56 capture-phase term, so verify-capture's headline number could not settle this even at peak alpha. It is discriminable only as a signed regional statistic. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
8eda446228 |
port: the plate's ramp was already in my export, and the renderer reproduces it
The Decoder is paused and could not take the capture I asked for, and said the disc half might not need them. It did not, and it did not need a new decode either: the ramp is already in export/screens/title/press_start.json. ptbtn00f carries eight keyframes on a 120-unit loop, alpha in the high byte of fade_argb, 0 -> 80 -> 0 with the peak held across t=35..50. Two things follow with no oracle. The blind phase is confirmed from the disc rather than inferred from rendering: alpha is exactly 0 at phase 0. And the renderer applies the ramp faithfully -- rendered contribution against declared alpha across six phases gives r = +0.9982, slope 0.4036 levels per alpha unit. So when and how strongly the port draws the highlight is verified. Only the composite is open, and the existing capture cannot settle it under either reading of the clock: posed at t=237 the phase is 117 where alpha is about 0, and the harness independently pins loop-phase 0 where alpha is exactly 0. Both agree, which is worth stating because I did not have to assume which clock the record runs on. The ask therefore narrows from "a mid-pulse instant" to a named window: one capture anywhere in t mod 120 in [35, 50], where alpha holds at its peak of 80. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
d45b23ebbe |
port: draw the plate's highlight additive, and find my harness poses it where it cannot be seen
blend-bit-vs-oracle.txt entry 2: ptbtn00 alpha-over, ptbtn00f ADDITIVE -- the PRESS (A) plate and its own highlight, one bit apart. Entry 4, the whole title, is alpha-over throughout including ptlogo_back2/ptlogo_back2eff, which independently kills the "frame-shaped and mostly transparent means additive" rule I declined to adopt. Bands are now per DRAW OP rather than per paint-order entry: one band per element cannot express base alpha-over with its own focus record additive. The change reported zero three times and each zero had a different cause. First, additive_elements was assigned to `view` in three places and to `overlay` in none, and the plate is an overlay -- every other decoded rule on that page goes to both. Second, I then measured that the element is never drawn, suppressing its sprite at six times across the cycle for 0 px every time, and was one commit from filing "the port never draws the plate highlight" as a defect. That sweep was invalid: I varied --time while passing --loop-phase=0 in every run, and --loop-phase pins exactly the clock a looping record runs on. Six samples of one phase. Third, swept properly, ptbtn00f contributes 0 px at phase 0 and 22-29k px at phases 20-100 -- and verify-capture's title_plate row poses at loop-phase 0. The row that validates the plate is blind to the plate's pulse by construction. It correctly reports 13.03 / 0.09 % unchanged while the fix moves 26 319 px at phase 20. Stated in the tool next to the pose. Not verified against the oracle: every title-plate capture we hold is at the blind phase, so no capture here can confirm the port now draws it right. Asked. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
9a8b43e7dd |
port: fix the runbook's unattended walk -- it never reached the submenu P5 rests on
RUNNING.md gave `--script=down,down,accept,cancel` as the unattended P5 walk. Two downs from the opening item lands on TUTORIAL, whose destination this export does not carry, so the example printed a not-carried message and returned to the title without opening a submenu at all. EXTRAS is the fifth item and needs four. The one submenu the milestone's gate rests on was the one the runbook's own command did not reach, and it survived because the command completed successfully. Third instance this session of "the run succeeded and the answer was wrong", after the MIX-default material and the vertex dump that captured two of six quads -- and the first one sitting in the document written for a human to follow. Verified by running both paths. Also verified end to end this iteration, on the real binary rather than from the document: cold boot reaches the title in 152.9 s with the intro playing 142.2 s for 137.4 s of media (+3.5 %); wrap, the left/right no-ops, EXTRAS opening on MISSION SELECT, B restoring the item you left, EXTRAS resetting to its own first item on re-entry, and the focus surviving a title round trip all behave as the table says. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
05be7d19f7 |
retro: the agreed result, plus the cue-suppression matrix it came out of
Agreed retro with the Decoder at docs/agents/RETRO-2026-08-31-agreed.md; their own review is at docs/agents/RETRO-2026-08-31.md on auto/frame-blend-draw-path. Twelve rules, of which the ones neither of us had: a refutation whose instrument is one of our renderers is not a refutation but "our renderer disagrees" (this cost weeks, both ways); a negative must carry a positive control, which no "undecodable with reach" page either of us has written ever did; and a disagreement is evidence about the chain disc -> decode -> render -> capture, not about the link being looked at. The gap underneath our controls, stated: they verified capability, not configuration. My additive material passed every control because they tested whether the method detects a blend difference, not whether this run had blend_mode set -- it was Godot's default MIX. Their vertex dump passed every control because they tested the NDC conversion, not whether it captured all six quads. Nothing applied to PROTOCOL.md. The register re-classification changes the file both agents read to decide what not to try, and two agents agreeing is not the right authority for that. Also committing the work that was pending when the stop came: verify-menu-audio now settles cue presence by suppression -- silence one cue's .ogg, re-record the same walk, and require its own correlation to collapse. All three cues sound (+0.158 / +0.637 / +0.526). The bed-only margin no longer renders a verdict: it called `move` NOT FOUND on three runs at 0.109-0.131 while the cue was demonstrably sounding, and across runs the same cue reads 0.131 and 0.158, so the threshold was never a property of the cue. The off-diagonal is reported as masking rather than asserted: silencing confirm raises back by 0.468 because the game plays them 90 ms apart under a 0.15 s template. An assertion there would fail forever on correct audio. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
975d77f0b2 |
port: take the completed EXTRAS blend set, and record two refutations that land on me
EXTRAS whole-screen residual 1.97 -> 0.63; ptframe4 31.90 -> 1.14, pteff21/22/23 from 12-14 to under 0.8. The four elements I reported as in no draw were in a draw all along -- the vertex dump was capped at two quads and the batch holds six, so four were dropped with a well-formed line and no ellipsis. Same failure class as my MIX-default material: the run completed, the output parsed, the answer was wrong. Their pteff10 flag, tested by holding it alpha-over with everything else additive: tone-corrected residual 0.630 additive against 1.704 alpha-over, but raw RMSE 12.91 against 9.98. They disagree because the port already renders +8.50 levels brighter than the capture on this screen before any of this, so raw RMSE punishes added light whether or not the light is right. Adopted on the measurement plus the structural metric; extras raw-rmse went 11.43 -> 12.88 and that is stated, not hidden. The differing region halved, 0.07 % -> 0.03 %. Refuted, mine: "every decoration 0x0 and every button 0x3002" was a two-screen generalisation I called a confirmation, one message after objecting to exactly that move in their page. My own export held the counter-examples -- ptbtn00 is 0x73002 and my exporter calls it unknown rather than button; three title elements are 0x3000, button-shaped and not focusable. kind & 0x2 is the focusable flag. Refuted, mine: the sweeps DO run on the main menu. Their log retains NDC and both strips overlap the screen in every captured frame, stepping in opposite directions with vertex alpha ramping. My phase sweep measured that the PORT'S sweeps make the match worse, which is a statement about my rendering, not about the game. A best-match argument for an absence cannot separate "not there" from "there and drawn wrong", and I had that caveat written down and read past it. Not flipped: the strips are additive with a ramping vertex alpha and the port has neither on the leaf path, so enabling the loop today would be more correct in behaviour and worse on screen. The ramp is asked for. What changed today is the claim -- the port is wrong here and now says so. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
49a6333166 |
port: free the canvas items I leaked, and refute the blend measurement's reach sentence
The RenderingServer rewrite leaked 5 CanvasItem RIDs per run -- exactly the number of paint-order runs on the main menu. Items created through the server are not owned by the node; a child Node2D would have been collected for me, and the reason for not using one is the reason this had to be paid for. Freed in _exit_tree. Nothing failed. verify-capture was green on every screen and the pictures were right; the leak line sat next to "N ObjectDB instances were leaked at exit", which BLOCKED.md records as engine-side and not ours after releasing every reference the port owns moved the count not at all. A new leak line beside a known-benign one is close to perfect camouflage. What distinguished it was the number: 5 is a count of my bands. Refutation, and it lands. ui-blend-mode-measured.md closes "every element on the two screens the port ships is in the table except the two above and pteff10". Checked against my export, counting the summary table's prose rows as coverage: exactly right for main_menu, and on EXTRAS it misses four -- ptframe4, pteff21, pteff22, pteff23. Five, not one. They are not an arbitrary four. They are precisely the elements the port now measures as the worst on that screen, ptframe4 at 16.19x the frame mean. Every measured row still stands and the port has transcribed all of them; what is wrong is the reach, and it is the difference between "one loose end" and the open ask in BLOCKED.md, which now says so. Secondary, offered as such: "every button" in the summary row is a class generalisation in a document that warns its reader to take the table as per-element facts. No button appears in the EXTRAS draw log at all. Very likely right, nothing of mine depends on it. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
0ca6d254f8 |
port: transcribe the sweeps' additive blend, and re-run my own menu-looping evidence with it
ui-blend-mode-measured.md names both rotated sweep strips additive in the same row as the frames. Those are ptloop01/ptloop02 here, now in additive_elements for both measured screens. It changes nothing visible: on the menus the port runs the leaf group once and parks it off-screen, and suppressing both sprites at leaf-time 100, 200 and 300 changes 0 pixels each time. It is in the file because it is measured. Refutation attempt on their identification, and it survives with a number of mine. The automatic matcher reports "no match" for those two draws; they rest on one control reproducing heights 1134 and 1303. Rendering the menu at a phase where the sweeps are on screen and suppressing them gives a footprint 884 px wide against their 889.6 -- 0.6 % apart, derived without using their number. The heights differ as they should: my bbox is clipped by the screen, theirs is the full quad extent. The blend was a confound in my own earlier evidence. loop_leaf_why scoped looping to the title partly on a phase sweep of mine that drew the sweeps ALPHA-OVER, so an on-screen sweep was composited wrongly and then scored against the capture. Re- run with additive and looping enabled for the menu, through a scratch export root so the repo was untouched: parked 0.0208 %, phase 150 on-screen 0.0851 % with the sweeps painting 58 027 px, other on-screen phases 0.086-0.122 %. The conclusion held and got stronger -- 3x with the wrong blend, 4-6x with the right one -- so the scoping stays and the correction is what is recorded. Still one capture, and best-match is still weak evidence for an absence. And a reading of the new log that I did not make: it shows both sweeps SUBMITTED on the main menu in every frame group, which is not evidence they animate there. A quad parked off-screen at x=1521 is still a draw call. The log settles the blend and not the visibility, and both questions arrived in the same artefact. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c453d8dade |
port: draw the measured additive blend -- main_menu 13.21 -> 10.67
The Decoder logged RB_BLENDCONTROL0 per draw in Canary on both screens. 0x01010101 is src=ONE dst=ONE, additive. That makes the blend a transcription rather than my proposal, and they withdrew the "any blend you choose is authored" instruction explicitly. Their control is what licenses the change: one pixel shader, 0xE59B2B3DA4AA9008, runs with BOTH blend states on the main menu -- 12 additive draws and 18 alpha-over. The frames and ptbase share a shader; only the blend register differs. authored/rendering.json gains additive_elements per screen. Every id is a measured draw and the reach is written beside it. verify-capture: main_menu 13.21 -> 10.67 (0.06 % -> 0.02 %), extras 13.38 -> 11.43, main menu with ptbtn04 focused 13.82 -> 11.36. Per element, ptframe1 22.72 -> 4.17 and ptframe2 13.09 -> 3.32. Neutrality control, free with the table: publisher_logo 2.17 and developer_logos 3.05 are unchanged to the digit. Those are the screens whose metric is absolute and they carry no additive element, so the rewrite that routed every draw through RenderingServer canvas items did not change the picture. The improvement is the blend, not the plumbing. RenderingServer rather than child Node2Ds because boot.gd calls view.queue_redraw() from nine places and none reaches a child node -- bands would paint the previous pose, which under --script=wait is a plausible wrong capture rather than an error. Runs are recomputed per frame: the additive elements are consecutive on both measured screens, and that is an accident of those two screens. And the change first ran with the material left at its default MIX, moving ptframe1 from 22.72 to 22.69. Nothing errored and a 0.03 move is a plausible negative result. It was caught only because the measurement predicted a large move. Not done: ptframe4 is now the worst element on EXTRAS at 16.19x the frame mean and additive would plainly help it. It is not in the measured table, so it is not in the file. Filed in BLOCKED.md with pteff21/22/23, which are also in no captured draw. Refuted, mine: "neither frame has a fully-opaque pixel" was true and was not the discriminator -- pteff10 has max alpha 130, no opaque pixel, and measures nearly exact. The direction survived; the reason for it did not. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
0a054d681b |
port: discriminate the blend -- additive halves alpha-over's error on both frames
Last iteration could say the shortfall scales with the background but not which curve. That is decidable with no RE: an element rendered over two different backgrounds gives two equations in a and aC, and the mod tree supplies the second background by suppressing pteff10/pteff12, which moves it by a mean of 26 levels. No placement, no coordinate transform, no texture decode assumed. The control is exact. Alpha-over rebuilt from the solved per-pixel a and aC reproduces the port's own render at RMSE 0.0000 on both screens, so the recovered values are right rather than a fit that lands nearby. RMSE against the capture, ptframe1 / ptframe3: additive 34.305 / 28.948 screen 50.052 / 50.368 alpha-over 65.046 / 71.299 <- what the port does not drawn 90.916 / 109.801 Same ordering on both. The frame is certainly drawn in the capture, and additive roughly halves the error of what the port currently does. What it is not: additive still leaves 28.9-34.3, so none of the three reproduces the capture. This ranks candidates, it does not identify the equation, and the absolutes are inflated by mapping the capture through the fitted LUT inverse -- the ranking is fair because all four go through the same mapping. Nothing adopted. The Decoder established no blend is on the disc for .t32, so any choice is authored, and the mission says propose rather than take. The renderer is unchanged. Refutation attempt, recorded as surviving: their kind-0 claim checked against my own exporter's independently decoded kind_raw. Every sprite decoration on both screens is 0x0, frames included, every button 0x3002. Two independent decodes agree, which is also what makes the blend question sharp -- the frames are declared identically to ptbase and pteff05, which the port draws at 1.31x and 0.92x. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b6a4a079f9 |
port: generalise the frame finding, refute my own premultiplied-alpha hypothesis
tools/port/element-residual turns last iteration's one-off suppression into a tool: pose a screen as verify-capture does, shadow each sprite with a transparent PNG, rank elements by residual on the pixels they actually paint. Two controls, both mandatory -- the metric's zero on identity, and a mod that shadows nothing must move zero pixels, or a footprint is the harness rather than the element. It generalises. Frames rank 1 and 2 on both screens with captures: ptframe1 9.47x and ptframe2 5.46x on main_menu, ptframe3 14.23x and ptframe4 10.46x on extras, all four body-dominated and all four negative. The sign splits, so it is not global darkness: ptmsg +5.02, ptmsg2 +8.83, pttitle +7.88 and every button positive. Refuted my own next hypothesis. Premultiplied alpha decoded as straight alpha predicts error proportional to partial-alpha fraction; the frames are 6.7-7.3 % partial and the most darkened, while pteff10 is 100 % partial and nearly exact. What the frames are: neither has a single fully-opaque pixel, against ptbase's 99.1 %. For a wholly semi-transparent overlay the blend equation decides the result, and alpha-over's shortfall against a background-scaling blend is a*bg. So the shortfall should track the BACKGROUND, not the frame's own contribution. Measured on render, frame-suppressed render and capture, needing no placement: ptframe1 +0.772 vs +0.244, ptframe3 +0.797 vs +0.237. Not adopting anything. The Decoder has established no blend mode is on the disc for .t32 and both frames are kind 0, declared identically to elements drawn almost exactly right, so any blend I pick is authored and that is not mine to take alone. Recorded as an extension of their negative, not a challenge: the behaviour is real and replicated, so if nothing in the data selects it, something in the code does -- the draw path they named as untaken. BLOCKED.md updated: the ask is answered, as a negative. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
cce31cb592 |
port: localise the menu residual to two frame elements by suppression, and refute my own hypothesis
The Decoder named the elements under my hot tiles and had to test both coordinate
readings, because design space and the comparison frame differ by the capture
transform. I did not need the transform: the port has a mod tree, so shadowing a
sprite with a transparent PNG and diffing my own two renders measures the
element's footprint directly, in the comparison frame, assuming no convention.
Ranked by residual density on each element's own visible pixels: ptframe1 22.72
(9.47x the frame mean), ptframe2 13.09, ptmsg 8.46, pteff12 4.98, ptbase 3.34.
That refutes the hypothesis I came in with. I predicted the EFFECT element, since
blend mode is recorded as undecoded in screen.rs and a miscomposited effect would
be tonal and displace nothing. It is the frames; pteff12's ratio is largely
inherited from containing ptframe1. The mechanism may still be right, the element
was wrong, and only ranking rather than confirming showed it.
And it is not an edge effect: ptframe1 and ptframe2 are the only elements whose
residual is higher on FLAT pixels (25.41, 16.54) than on edges (19.85, 9.82).
Signed, ptframe1 renders 88.4 against the capture's 129.1 with 0.1 % of pixels
render-brighter. Body intensity, one direction, after a global tone LUT.
Filed in BLOCKED.md against HANDOFF
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6af06bd595 |
port: localise the menu residual -- nothing is displaced, and the split I expected is absent
tools/port/edge-residual-map tiles the frame at 64 px and runs the shift discriminator inside each tile, which is what edge-residual-kind's reach statement said it could not do. Division agreed with the Decoder: the map is mine, the element inventory is theirs. The first control failed and that is the useful part. A known +2 px displacement localises perfectly but reads back +0.839 -- the slope is a linearisation and saturates. So there are two controls now: +1 px asserts localisation AND magnitude (+0.949), +2 px asserts localisation and sign only. A hot tile's slope is a floor on the displacement, never a ceiling. Result: every dx and dy in the top ten tiles is under 0.1 px. Nothing in the hot region has moved, locally or globally, so the misplaced-soft-element candidate now has no support on this screen. Hot tiles cluster at x 384-704, y 64-256 plus an outlier at 640,576; the tool names nothing and the list has gone to the Decoder. And a null: I added a flat-pixel column expecting two families, edge-only against hot-everywhere. The hot tiles run continuously 1.24..3.37 across a median of 1.84. What nearly manufactured the split was carrying over the frame-wide POOLED ratio of 3.16 as the baseline -- pooling is dominated by the tiles with the most edge pixels. Same quantity, wrong population; caught because the baseline was computed before the claim rather than after. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
f4351b0b8c |
port: run the peer's shift-vs-blur discriminator -- the menu is not misregistered
They proposed the test and said they had not run it. It needs the port's render
beside the capture, so it was mine: a shift makes the signed residual track the
gradient (and the fitted slope is the shift in pixels), a blur makes it track the
laplacian. New tool, tools/port/edge-residual-kind.
Controls first, and they are not optional: a known +1 px shift reads back as
+0.938 px (r +0.789), a known blur as r -0.896 on the laplacian, neither leaking
into the other's channel.
Result: -0.010 px, -0.009 px, laplacian r +0.103. Flat. Any whole-frame
translation is under a hundredth of a pixel, and the weak blur term has the
opposite sign to the blur control. Misregistration is excluded.
Reach: whole-frame fit. One misplaced element is a small share of 38 752 edge
pixels and would not move these numbers -- this excludes a GLOBAL translation,
not a local one. A misplaced soft element remains untouched.
Exit codes 0 or 2, no 1 -- it classifies, it does not judge. The control-failure
branch verified by raising the thresholds: report suppressed, exit 2.
Also: GP_DIALOG 2/3 restored to authored/flow.json. I declined to re-add it on a
relay; they have now taken the ja capture (HANDOFF at
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
5738b8328f |
port: refute the peer's tone/geometry positive control, and label the number that misled it
docs/re/structures/title-residual-tone-vs-geometry.md validates its per-level-LUT instrument with a positive control on the main menu, on the grounds that "the port measures only 0.06 % of pixels differing, so geometry is essentially right". That 0.06 % is verify-capture's, and it counts pixels differing by more than ~64 levels -- a gross-displacement detector. It is blind to sub-pixel offsets and antialiasing differences, which are exactly what a per-level LUT also cannot close. Measured: after the LUT, the menu's remaining residual is 6.94 on edge pixels and 2.20 on flat ones, 3.2x. Known negative -- render vs itself under a pure gamma -- leaves 0.00, exactly, because a per-level LUT inverts a per-level effect perfectly. So the concentration is spatial and the menu is not a geometry-free control. Their conclusion survives: the title's 32 % never depended on the control. The refutation is of the validation only, and I say so. The half that is mine: verify-capture's header now states what the diff column thresholds and what it therefore cannot establish, next to the number itself. Not settled: whether the menu's spatial error is misregistration, antialiasing, or a misplaced soft element. This does not separate them. |