Continuing the F1 investigation rather than starting a fresh one. Last
iteration left two competing hypotheses open (Keystroke-queue-driven vs
polled-state-driven repeat) and flagged C_PAD_RINGBUF's producer as the
cheapest thing to trace next -- named but not traced.
Traced it this time: C_PAD_DECODER's own constructor (sub_8220B610)
allocates C_PAD_RINGBUF (52-byte control struct, 1024-byte backing buffer,
confirmed against its own Shift-JIS trace strings -- "C_PAD_RINGBUF
initialization" and its allocation-error message). Its update function
(sub_8220B8C0) takes the input-manager singleton as a parameter and reads
the ring at offsets 12, 36, 40, 44 and 48 -- not just the one button word.
Offsets 36-48 are four consecutive fields read together through the same
int-to-double conversion an analog axis would use. XamInputGetKeystrokeEx
has no field for a stick position, so a structure carrying four axis-shaped
fields cannot be a keystroke queue -- it reads as a periodically-refreshed
polled-state snapshot. My own prior reading of the "ring buffer" name as
implying a queue was the wrong inference; refuted by tracing it, recorded
either way per adversarial duty.
This shifts the balance toward the second, previously-uncertain hypothesis:
the file driver's GetState() was always capable of showing real repeat (no
modification needed), and nav_repeat_and_b.py's null result is more likely
a sampling artifact of its ~4-5 fps screen-diff detector than a structural
driver limit. Revises "what would close it" accordingly -- re-run the
existing draw-log position-tracking instrument, gated on the menu properly,
before reaching for a driver change.
Not found: the actual producer that writes into C_PAD_RINGBUF each frame --
narrowed to "reachable from the input-manager singleton fetch in
sub_821A9DC8," not traced to completion. Still no number for issue #1;
this narrows the path to one, further than last iteration but not there.
Issue #1's premise (the human's play-test: a held direction repeats) directly
contradicted menu-navigation-semantics.md's 2026-08-30 "no auto-repeat"
row. Read the instrument before trusting either: nav_repeat_and_b.py drove
input through Canary's --hid=file driver, and that driver's GetKeystroke()
is explicitly, deliberately built to deliver exactly one event per held
press ("scripted input wants precisely one event per press, and repeat is
what makes menu steps overshoot" -- file_input_driver.h's own comment).
input-pad-read-path.md already established the game reads menu input via
this same Keystroke API. A driver engineered to prevent repeat cannot be
evidence the game lacks it -- the counter's control (a tap gives 1 spike)
proved the counter works, not that the driver could show more than one.
Not a clean reversal, and said so: the same driver's GetState() holds a
button continuously with no edge suppression, and pad.py's own docstring --
written by an earlier session driving this exact tool -- warns that a longer
dpad hold "auto-repeats and overshoots," describing an observed effect
through this same driver. The two pieces of evidence disagree and this page
does not resolve which wins.
Also read from Canary's source: the SDL input driver (what a real controller
goes through) auto-repeats keystrokes at 400 ms initial delay then 100 ms
interval, guest time (HID_SDL_REPEAT_DELAY/RATE, upstream Xenia, not a
project change) -- a concrete, testable prediction for what the real number
could be if the menu treats repeat-flagged keystrokes as nav steps, matching
the human's "medium pace" description. Not yet measured.
Refutation attempt this iteration, recorded per adversarial duty: targeted
the 2026-08-30 "no auto-repeat, ✅ measured" claim. Survives only partially --
demoted to unsettled, not flipped to a confident opposite. New REFUTED.md
section (Menu navigation and input) and the row in
menu-navigation-semantics.md both corrected in place, old text kept per
convention.
What would close it: trace C_PAD_RINGBUF's producer (keystroke ring vs
polled state) statically, or add an opt-in repeat mode to the file driver
and read cursor position off the draw log per frame. Neither run this
iteration -- this is the static half, and reversing a standing claim is
enough for one unit without stacking a build-and-boot run on top of it
unverified.
