A resolve-check on HANDOFF's own rows. Q8 read "SE audio is undecodable
from the disc -- no XACT container exists anywhere". menu-audio-cues.md
retracted exactly that ("### Retracting 'cannot be extracted'") and
locates three cues in Static.slb that decode to PCM: d-pad move 0x1ec0
(4 packets), (B) back 0x0ec0 (2), (A) confirm 0x5d6c0 (6), all mono
48 kHz. The retraction landed in docs/re/ and the page the port reads
kept the superseded text -- the fourth time in this corpus.
Writing the rule down has not worked, so there is a tool now.
handoff_lint.py flags every HANDOFF line making a strong negative claim
that links a doc containing retraction language. First run: found the Q8
row, plus one benign false positive (Q3 links a doc whose retraction is
about a sprite count, not about the tie-break -- checked, and HANDOFF
repeats none of the retracted figures). The lint also caught its own bug
first: it reported existing docs as missing because it joined a guessed
repo root, so it now resolves links relative to the file as markdown does.
Separately, EXTRAS's paint-order risk narrows twice more. Of its 15 tied
pairs only 2 overlap, and of those, ptloop01 x ptloop02 are loop*
animations compose skips by default -- so exactly ONE tie can be drawn:
ptframe3 x ptframe4, overlapping 102x132 px. Against live-extras.png that
contested region correlates +0.9622, better than the whole frame (+0.9440)
and inside the range of regions where order cannot matter (+0.8502 /
+0.9903). Consistent with our order, not proof: correlation cannot see a
swap between locally similar art.
15 -> 2 -> 1 -> consistent is now the whole paint-order risk on the five
screens, and HANDOFF says so.
Q3 was delivered as "decoded: a u16 layer key at +0x0A". The audit last
iteration showed the key does not fully order a screen -- elements
sharing a key are tied, and on the title that tie-break decides two total
occlusions. This searches for what breaks the tie, and closes it as a
negative with reach.
The game paints the five tied ptlogo_back2eff glows in the order
eff1, eff2, eff5, eff3, eff4. Three static structures were searched:
1. The declaration table. Entries 14-18 are byte-identical apart from the
pivot, which is only half the sprite's own size.
2. The T8aD headers. All five carry identical +0x04 (0x8832) and
identical +0x08/+0x0A (32899, the key itself), differing only in
position and tile count. Searched exhaustively -- every offset
0x00-0x7f, u8/u16/u32, ascending and descending:
fields sorting to the MEASURED order: 0
fields sorting to the DECLARATION order (control): 64
The control is the point: 64 fields can be found that reproduce a
known ordering, so the scan finds ordering fields when they exist. It
finds none for the order the game uses.
3. The RATC child order -- a genuinely different permutation on other
screens -- gives eff1..eff5 here, declaration order again.
All three static orderings give eff1..eff5; the game gives eff1,2,5,3,4.
That agrees with ui-screen-runtime's conclusion from the other direction:
the game builds a reordered child list at load time and paints that.
Q3 now reads honestly: the layer key is decoded and orders 4 of the 5
measured bundles exactly; the tie-break within a key is undecodable, and
a consumer must use a measured order or accept declaration index as an
arbitrary stand-in. The port's exposure remains 2 overlapping tied pairs
on EXTRAS.
METHOD: an exhaustive field search needs a positive control, or "found
nothing" is worthless.
`compose` claimed the derived paint order "reproduces both measured
orders up to ties". That sentence was never measured and was stale by
one: there are three measured orders, not two. examples/paint_order_audit.rs
checks it.
main menu (entries 5, 8) derived == measured 0 inverted pairs
developer splash (11, 14) derived == measured 0 inverted pairs
title (entry 4) DIFFERS 8, all same-key ties
So the claim holds and the exception is entirely ties -- but two of those
ties are total occlusions, not near-misses. The tied family is the five
ptlogo_back2eff glows (key 32899); back2eff5 is 1133x280 and FULLY
CONTAINS back2eff3 (82,824 px^2 = 100% of the smaller) and back2eff4
(152,047 px^2 = 100%). Derived paints it on top of two glows it entirely
covers; the game paints it underneath. A tie-break by declaration index
can therefore be wrong by a whole layer. The title itself is unaffected --
it has a measured order.
The port's actual exposure, per screen: title, main menu and developer
splash all use MEASURED orders; the publisher splash is derived but has
ZERO ties, so it is fully determined; EXTRAS is derived with 15 tied
pairs of which only 2 OVERLAP. Two element pairs on one screen is the
whole risk, and that is what HANDOFF now says -- not the raw 15, which
would have overstated it 7x.
Reach stated: this compares the derived order against orders measured
from the game, not an independent derivation, so where no measured order
exists only the tie exposure can be checked. Overlap uses pivot*2 as the
element size at its resting placement.
Stale comment in compose corrected. METHOD: a hedge in a code comment is
an unmeasured claim; and count the cases that can bite, not the ones that
match the pattern.
