sylpheed-port corrected the disc figure I compared against: the leaf's final
segment HOLDS, so a cycle length is not a motion duration. Verified from the
disc rather than accepted -- pteff03 moves over t=0..540 of a 600-unit cycle
(4.000 px/unit, not 3.600) and pteff03a over 0..630 of 720 (4.063, not 3.556).
Checking that sent me back to my own measurement, which was worse. "6-7
px/frame" came from eyeballing deltas between consecutive APPEARANCES in a
capture that skips frames, so a delta of 7 often spans two frames. A
least-squares fit of x against frame over all 132/112 points gives +4.287 and
-4.348 px/frame, with rms residuals of 3.6 and 3.3 px.
So the confirmation I reported was a prediction 20 % too low meeting a
measurement 50 % too high. Neither number was right and the agreement was an
artefact of both being wrong -- which is the most dangerous form of agreement in
this corpus, because nothing about it looked suspicious.
The corrected numbers say something larger than the claim they replace. Measured
against declared: 4.287/4.000 = 1.072 units per frame, and 4.348/4.063 = 1.070.
Two independent strips with different cycle lengths and different declared rates
agree to three significant figures. Q1 establishes 2 units per RENDERED frame for
top-level elements. So either a nested leaf record advances at about half the
top-level rate, or Q1's factor does not apply to nested records. Measured, not
explained, and flagged as deserving its own iteration because Q1 is load-bearing.
One untested candidate recorded: 1 unit per 1/30 s of game time against the
~28.5 fps this corpus measures for the idle title gives 1.053, close to 1.07.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
Attempted to refute sylpheed-port's leaf table by measuring it against the disc.
It SURVIVES to the digit: ptloop01 -> pteff03, cycle span 600, x track
-639..1521, scale (100, 600); ptloop02 -> pteff03a, span 720, x -839..1721,
scale (100, 800).
The existing ptloop_leaf_sweep_at.rs samples only t=340..540 -- a window chosen
to compare two competing fits -- so it could never have shown the extent. That
gap is what let my "ptloop01/02 do not free-run" claim stand: measured over the
parent's 200x90 pivot rect, which a leaf travelling -639..1521 is almost never
inside. ptloop_leaf_extent.rs sweeps the whole cycle instead.
New fact neither of us had: the leaves are IDENTICAL on entries 4, 5 AND 7 --
the title, the main menu and the JP title. Same leaf names, spans, x tracks,
scales and parent rest position. So the menu declares exactly the same sweep as
the title, and the still-open menu question is about the game's behaviour rather
than a different declaration.
The quad is 400 px wide at scale_x 100 % -- not widened -- and scale_y 600/800 %
makes it 1080/1440 px tall, taller than the screen. A full-height strip crossing
the frame and going off both sides, which is why a phase-to-phase diff covers the
union of two positions and looks frame-wide.
And my own "centre running x~921->1041" was a 30-unit window of a 600-unit cycle
whose centre spans -439..1721. A sub-range is not an extent -- the same caution
as a pivot not being a bounding box, one level up, and I made both errors within
a day.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
