a27e6096727a94ed2e15eff6a82d00723103e032
14 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sylpheed port agent
|
a27e609672 |
port: WITHDRAW the leaf rate the same day it was adopted
The Decoder withdrew 0.514: captured frames are presents and the present rate
differs per run -- the same animation took 1168 frames in one capture and 600 in
another, 1.947x apart, with that run's own baseline moving 1.953x alongside. So
it measured the capture's pacing, not the game. rate is null again (identity).
📌 The tell was there before the withdrawal and neither of us weighed it. The
human said the animation itself LOOKS correct. A port running 1.0x against a real
0.514x would be twice too fast and they would have said so. Their impression was
evidence against the number and both of us recorded it as a puzzle instead. A
human's impression is weak about magnitudes and strong about gross wrongness.
start_units 40 kept but marked provisional: two captures agree in RATIO form,
which needs no clock and survives the withdrawal, but converting the ratio to
title units needs the title rate, and that is itself in conflict (1.0 units/frame
from ptcopyright's ramp against 0.571 from the plate's, 1.75x apart).
Kept rather than reverted because 0 is not a measurement either -- it is the
unexamined assumption that the leaf shares the screen's clock.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
d7e4a7167e |
port: F6 -- adopt the measured leaf clock, and stop a parent killing its leaf
Two changes, both measured, neither invented.
1. LEAF CLOCK. authored/rendering.json leaf_clock.title = {start_units 40,
rate 0.514}, from the Decoder's f6-unit8, both numbers off ONE capture. The
title's own rate is measured rather than assumed there (ptcopyright ramps
0->255 over 22 declared units across 22 frames = 1.000 units/frame), which was
the assumption their unit 4 had flagged. Supersedes their earlier 0.463, which
divided by the end of MOTION -- the declared track is stationary from t=540 to
600, so that denominator was short; 0.514 anchors on the loop wrap.
Corroborated independently: the human reported the port looks FASTER than the
game, offered as an impression. 1.0x against 0.514x is exactly twice too fast.
2. A LEAF OUTLIVES ITS PARENT. _draw skipped any element whose PARENT posed
transparent, before _draw_leaf was reached, so ptloop01 expiring at t=250 took
the sweep with it -- while this file's own decode says the leaf runs on its own
timeline and the parent's alpha is not multiplied in. The two were inconsistent
and the silent gate won. The capture settles it: the game submits the sweep
across frames 746..1913 while the parent expires at 956, so it keeps drawing
~950 frames after the parent is gone.
VERIFIED by probing the running renderer at two PRE-REGISTERED instants:
title u=400 -> leaf t=185.0, pteff03 centre 301 (predicted 301),
pteff03a centre 1169 (predicted 1168)
title u=800 -> leaf t=390.6, pteff03 centre 1124 (predicted 1124),
pteff03a centre 333 (predicted 332)
All within 1 px.
Effect at the plate's arrival (title t=236): the sweep's centre moves from 505 --
halfway across the screen -- to -36, just entering at the left edge. The human's
report is that the game's glow begins when the plate appears.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
4d533185e7 |
port: leaf clock mechanism -- origin and rate, both UNSET
F6 is a clock question, not an effect question: the human confirms the light animation itself looks like the game's and only starts earlier, and separately that the port may be running it faster (flagged by them as an impression). The port passed time_units straight to the leaf, which is an assumption -- offset 0, rate 1 -- that nobody measured and that the Decoder's capture contradicts: the game's leaf t=0 is its first drawn frame, 40 frames after the title's first element, at a rate measuring well below the title's. ScreenView.leaf_clock(screen_units) applies an origin and a rate; both default to -1.0 meaning unmeasured, in which case it is the identity and behaviour is unchanged. Fed from authored/rendering.json leaf_clock per screen, currently null with the provenance recorded. No placeholder values, per F1: an invented constant here is indistinguishable from a measured one later. Verified inert: title rendered at t=2/3/4 s, 0 differing pixels against captures taken before the change. Also corrected in the process: my earlier 'the sweep enters the viewport at t=61' used the UNROTATED sprite width. The leaf carries a 30 deg rest rotation, so its AABB is 886 px against a 399 px sprite -- matching the Decoder's measured ~890 to within 4 px. Port and game both put the quad on screen at leaf t~0, so the whole discrepancy is the leaf clock's origin and rate. |
||
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
98d02e7c24 |
port: my triage under-counted, and three uncited measurements surfaced behind it
Their audit found 9 of 57 HANDOFF sections asserting measured or undecodable-with-reach citing nothing openable, 84%, including one they had sent me: '(B) from EXTRAS DOES go black', delivered as an inline frame table while data/fade-four-transitions.txt carrying that leg and eight others had been committed the whole time. It had already landed here uncited. timing.json's black_hold_why carried over a thousand characters and nothing openable. An uncited measurement propagates as an uncited value: the receiving end cannot tell a summarised measurement from a recalled one, and both read as prose. And my triage had missed it along with seven others. Last iteration I reported 13 provenance claims among the 52 and labelled them; the count was wrong because my sibling match was literal, so black_hold_why did not match black_hold_units, nor loop_start_why to loop_start_s, dwell_why to dwell_seconds, loop_leaf_why to loop_leaf_on_screens. Eight more, all hidden by a suffix. It was 21 and I stated 13 confidently. All eight now labelled from their own text; coverage 16 to 38. Three uncited MEASURED fields in one file -- loop_why at 1400 chars, loop_start_why at 1041, voice/presentation_why at 1402 and authored -- and all three were detailed rather than sloppy. The detail is what made them look sourced: a why that recounts a measurement carefully reads as well-evidenced because it is careful. That is the quality-correlated blind spot one level down -- not 'well-evidenced values never declared themselves' but 'well-argued prose never cited anything'. The authored one now cites the open question it stands in for. A false positive in my own extractor surfaced in the same pass: presentation_why was reported DANGLING on 1118268 and 1171516, byte counts read as commit shas because they are seven digits of valid hex characters. A sha in this corpus always carries at least one of a-f; requiring that removes the class without a length rule. A wrong verdict for a fabricated reason, the fourth of that family and this time in the auditor. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
f06be84be6 |
port: a withholding reason was false -- the hidden leaf is a visible expanding ring
authored/rendering.json justified not drawing build_12,15/pgloading_loop5 with 'leaf scale (0,0)'. That describes t=0 and t=30 and nothing after. The leaf holds pgloading_ring, scale ramping 0 -> 250 -> 800 -> 1000 with alpha full at t=55 -- an expanding fading ring, visible at scale 140 alpha 143 at the port's own pose instant near t=44. Withholding it declines to draw SOMETHING. Still withheld, on the reason already in the file: no oracle capture for a loading screen and verify-screen's reference draws no leaves, so the content is unadjudicable. Behaviour unchanged at 59530 px. The two entries in that list were written to different standards -- ptlogo_eff2 gets four paragraphs working through both readings, pgloading_loop5 got one false line. The difference is that one was interesting and one was a loading screen. Also verifies the measurement in the same paragraph: 'max went 155 -> 232 when drawn' reproduces at 231, differing pixels 20498 -> 58313. The file's numbers were sound and its reasoning was not, in adjacent sentences. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
39209eab05 |
port: the title's sweeps loop, the black hold is 9 units, and one claim refuted
THREE THINGS FROM THE DECODER, one of which I am not taking. REFUTED: "the developer splash is one composited quad, the bounding box of the three logos". The observed quad is 525x259 at (378,155). The three logos' bounding box is 500x421 at (390,164) -- a 259-tall quad CANNOT contain them, and palogo_anima alone starts at y=449, thirty-five pixels below that quad's bottom edge. The observed quad matches the union of gamearts_eff and seta_eff, 521x261 at (379,154), to about four pixels in every dimension -- and both of those are TRANSIENTS my own census flagged, dark by t=45, so a frame containing that quad is a build-in frame rather than the settled screen. I cannot see their draw stream, so I sent the arithmetic rather than a verdict, and the port keeps drawing three: I will not stop drawing an element on a claim whose stated identification excludes that element from its own bounding box. THE BLACK HOLD IS 9 UNITS, NOT 12. I authored 12 from Q7's luminance plateau of 0.17-0.23 s, supported by the menus' transition quad. The Decoder counted SUBMITTED QUADS instead -- luminance cannot separate the outgoing fade's tail from true black. Four frames with no sprite quad at all, at 2.284 units/frame derived from the disc as its own clock, gives 9.1 units = 0.152 s (6.9-11.4). That overlaps the luminance figure only at the top, and the true black is SHORTER still since both boundary frames carry picture. My 12 was supported by analogy -- a different screen's quad on a different path -- and a number that fits by analogy loses to one measured in place. verify-dwell's bound moved with it; both screens still agree. THE TITLE'S SWEEPS LOOP. The oracle shows the quad oscillating over its whole x range and resetting hard, one reset in the first title dwell and two in the second. The loop-length field could NOT have settled it, correcting a hope I had stated: both records declare exactly their last keyframe time, slack zero, and "loops at 600" and "runs once for 600 and stops" write the identical header. Verified on the two sweeps' LCM, since their periods differ: 600 and 720 realign at 3600 units, mean diff 0, against 0.438 at half that. Scoped to the title. The menus declare the same lengths but the oracle measurement is of the title, and my own weak evidence points the other way there -- best match with the sweeps off-screen, three times worse mid-screen, against a 73% on-screen duty cycle if they looped. Two weak signals in opposite directions is a reason to scope, not to pick. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
8994ca7c59 |
port: the 11.5 px was the fit's resolution -- and the lesson inverts
The Decoder closed it by ADDING OBSERVABLES, not by tuning. The vertex buffer carries positions and colours at the same instant, so all four quantities must agree on one t: quad A x solves to 357.88 and quad B x to 357.58, both +/-0.12 units, against 355.75 +/-1.54 and 354.09 +/-1.89 from the alphas. Alpha moves only 0.27-0.33 levels per unit, so one byte of quantisation is worth 1.5-1.9 units -- 6-8 px of sweep at 4 px/unit. That is the whole of the 11.5 px. At t=357.7 the centres land within 0.70 px and both alphas inside one level. THE LESSON IS THE EARLIER ONE INVERTED AND IT IS THE HALF WORTH KEEPING. Checking a wrong rule against alpha made it look confirmed; here the same insensitivity MANUFACTURED a residual that did not exist. An insensitive quantity does not merely fail to falsify -- it invents error. Solve on the fastest-moving field, check the slow one, never the reverse. I was already looking for a pivot rule to explain 11.5 px when they wrote; there was nothing to find. REFUTATION ATTEMPT, survived with a nuance: they state the leaf pivot is (200,90) on a 399x180 sprite, "the pivot is the centre, so rotation displaces it by nothing". Checked against my export -- pivot [200,90], sprite 399x180, true centre 199.5,90. It survives, but the sprite is ODD-WIDTH so the pivot is the centre to within half a pixel rather than exactly. No consequence against their 0.70 px agreement; worth stating because "displaces it by nothing" is the kind of sentence that later gets leaned on for a sub-pixel claim. verify-capture now poses the title at t=357.7 rather than 355: RMSE 21.07 -> 20.92, differing 1.82% -> 1.81%. Marginal, and it is the right pose for a stated reason rather than a better number. AND ptlogo_eff2 IS WITHHELD FOR A BETTER REASON THAN MINE. I had it on caution about untested generalisation; the Decoder points out it is on title_jp and MISSION section 7 scopes out "localisation beyond English", so it is not a question this port has to answer and the parked Japanese capture does not need reviving for it. authored/rendering.json now gives scope first and undecidability second. Widening scope to close a residual would have been the wrong trade. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
9f6959c7ca |
port: implement the decoded leaf composition -- and it does not close the 1.82%
The Decoder decoded the rule I refused to guess: draw the leaf on its own timeline, do NOT multiply the parent's alpha in. Multiplying is refuted rather than unsupported -- at the fitted time the parent has expired, so leaf x parent predicts zero for both quads and the sweeps would be invisible. They are drawn. Implemented: `_draw_leaf` runs the leaf unclamped, like the spinning ring and for the same reason -- held at its own rest.t the leaf sits at x=1521, entirely off the right edge, so `holding` would delete the sweeps rather than settle them. AND IT CHANGES NOTHING MEASURABLE. The title is still 1.82% against the oracle: 1.82 at t=261, 1.81 at t=355, 1.79 at t=420. At t=355 my interpolation puts the leaf's top-left at x ~ -324, off-screen left, where the Decoder's model puts the quad's CENTRE at 981. Those cannot both be right, and it is not something to tune away -- it is a disagreement about how the leaf's keyframes become a placed quad, most likely in the pivot and the rotation about it. Handed back with both numbers. So: the exporter no longer drops the data, the composition rule is implemented as decoded, and the port's largest oracle gap is exactly where it was. Fixing the export was necessary and not sufficient. TWO FLAGGED ELEMENTS DELIBERATELY NOT DRAWN, in authored/rendering.json with reasons. title_jp/ptlogo_eff2 (parent 125%, leaf 100%) is the same shape and is the element DECISIONS has recorded since P1 as the largest render disagreement -- but the Decoder said plainly "I have not tested it", and drawing it would extend a decode past the case it was fitted on. pgloading_loop5's leaf is scale (0,0), and scale-0 is one of the three historical failures this corpus names. Neither can be adjudicated here: title_jp has no oracle capture, and verify-screen compares against a renderer that draws no leaves at all, so ANY leaf drawing increases that divergence whether right or wrong. Its max went 155 -> 232 when they were drawn, and that number is not evidence in either direction. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF |