Two runs, neither answering whether a .tbm draws pixels.
Run 1 TIMED the title->menu transition and was still on the title 8 s later
(glyph 714, the plate's pulse trough), so the second tap did the transition and
the 'submenu' capture is the menu. Void.
Run 2 DETECTED the menu instead -- glyph 327, matching live-main-menu.png
exactly -- tapped 0.8 s later, and 12 s after that was still on the menu. The
log says why: 2 file-pad vk=5800 lines, i.e. ONE press, and one RE-INPUT
delivery. The second tap was never delivered, with zero swallow lines so it is
not the sign-in path. A 0.12 s press issued while the guest is still loading a
screen is missed outright.
So 'the press did nothing' and 'there was no press' look identical from the
screen, and only the log separates them.
Worth more than the run: this is the third time in one iteration that timing was
used where detection was required -- the title->menu wait, the menu->submenu
wait, and the press itself. Each fix is the same substitution, and each was
written only after the timed version had produced a confident wrong answer.
Also records that no focus detector is needed for this question, since every
main-menu destination except EXTRAS carries a .tbm decider.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
The port found its exporter still shipping 'no loop-point field has been
identified anywhere' in the field manifest.json concatenates, days after the
correction existed in other fields. Auditing this corpus the same way found the
same failure here: the refuted sentence was still standing untouched in
bgm-two-stems.md -- where anyone looking up BGM behaviour arrives -- and in
HANDOFF.md, the one page the port is told to read. My correction had gone into a
NEW page only.
Both fixed in place, each naming the refutation rather than quietly deleting the
old claim, and each carrying the measured window [9.44, 71.31] s at 61.87 s.
METHOD entry: writing a correction down is not landing it. Grep the corpus for
the CLAIM, not for the file you were working in. Plus the port's trap in doing
that audit -- a replacement that quotes the refuted sentence in order to name it
will match a substring search from inside the paragraph saying it is false.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
