e9a57e216761ccf1910b8b0edf41ecacc0dff97f
1263 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sylpheed port agent
|
2bf93916bb |
port: the two sweep leaves DO run on their own periods -- refutation not landed
The Decoder raised it and could not test it: if the port ran both leaves on one
rate they would stay locked and drift ~118 units per cycle. The leaves declare
600 and 720.
Pre-registered, then measured on a real boot. At raw leaf clock 4873:
pteff03 span 600 -> measured 72.6 (fposmod 73)
pteff03a span 720 -> measured 552.6 (fposmod 553)
The port takes each span from that leaf's OWN keyframes, so they were never
locked. 17748 samples, title clock reaching 9745 -- the sweep loops 162 s in.
🔴 Two false alarms of mine on the way, both the same mistake:
- used --time (which sets frozen and bypasses the holding clamp BY DESIGN) to
ask about RUNNING behaviour, and nearly reported the whole title vanishing
past t=250. On a real boot settle_window [160,236,198] clamps to t=198 and a
filmed frame at view_units 6733 shows the complete title.
- read a probe going quiet as the feature stopping. Two runs ended at u~236;
that was the RUN ending, not the sweep. With a film attached the same probe
reaches 9745.
Both are the frozen-sweep lesson again: the diagnostic that pins the clock cannot
answer a question about the clock running, and an instrument going quiet is not
the subject going quiet -- the same shape as a count of zero meaning only that
nothing reached the reader.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
41f13318f4 |
port(exporter): 0x3003 is a button too -- the OPTIONS menu navigates
The Decoder decoded bit 0 of kind as the PARENT FLAG, disc-wide: kind & 1 agrees
with 'has a parent' on 15493 elements, zero disagreements. So 0x3003 is 0x3002
parented, and carries no role information -- the OPTIONS rows were never a
different class, they just have a parent.
Detector now matches 0x3002 | 0x3003 as TWO LISTED VALUES, not a mask.
kind & 0xFFFE == 0x3002 would also match 0x73002/0x73003 -- 160 elements whose
0x70000 bits are undecoded -- silently, on screens neither agent has looked at.
Excluded by construction until somebody decides deliberately.
Impact measured BEFORE re-exporting: exactly two screens gain buttons, options
and options_jp, five rows each. No existing screen changes.
Verified: main_menu -> down x3 -> (A) -> OPTIONS, then down x2 moves
po_menu_btn2 -> po_menu_btn3, focus ring rendering on the highlighted row.
📌 Waiting was right. The rule I rejected -- 'carries a focus record therefore is
a menu item' -- would have reached this answer by a second inference from
structure and reclassified elements on unseen screens. The field cost one
question and needed no inference.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
a921c1ef9d |
port: OPTIONS is reachable from the main menu
main_menu ptbtn04 had goto:null and blocked:'GP_OPTIONS not in this export'. GP_OPTIONS is in the export now, entry 19 is its root, and the walk works: main_menu -> down x3 -> (A) -> the OPTIONS root renders, (B) backs out. A dead button became a real screen. 🔴 Navigation INSIDE it does not work, and that is a decode question. The exporter's detector is kind==0x3002 && !focused; the OPTIONS rows are 0x3003, so role is unknown and buttons[] is empty. Not widened here -- what 0x3003 means is the Decoder's. The circumstantial case is strong and circumstantial is exactly the standard that has cost this project three retractions. A rule of 'has a focus record therefore is a menu item' fits both screens and is still an inference about semantics from structure; not taken. Also recorded: a screen NAME only reaches the port through a full re-export, which re-transcodes both movies -- renaming one screen costs the whole tree. 🔴 And a dangerous mistake: pkill -f 'check-all' matched the CONTAINER ENTRYPOINT, whose command line contains the loop prompt, which mentions check-all. pgrep then reported the job still running after it had stopped, and pkill -9 on that pattern could have killed the session. Match on comm or list with ps and check first -- a pattern that appears in your own instructions does not identify a process. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
4c24e06b28 |
port: name the 14 OPTIONS screens, from the text they render about themselves
Seven clean EN/JP pairs, no leftovers -- which is itself a check on the reading.
Entry 19 is the OPTIONS ROOT (GAME/CONTROL/SOUND/SCREEN SETTINGS + BACK) and is
main_menu ptbtn04's destination.
Identified by CONTENT THE SCREEN STATES ABOUT ITSELF -- rendered at rest and
read. That is deliberately not identification by position, size or ordinal, the
three this project has been burned by: the sweep strips confused by size, the
plate identified by screen position, ptcopyright mistaken for the plate.
⚠️ Recorded as NOT established: which screen the GAME navigates to from which.
The tree is read off content, so 'customize is reached from control settings' is
a reading of a button legend, not a measured transition.
Nothing is reachable yet -- ptbtn04 still has goto null. Wiring is next.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
77f1d1880b |
port: 4 of 5 menu destinations are blocked on one hardcoded archive
Probed with the EXISTING build detector -- no new decoding. 24 disc archives contain UI screen builds; the exporter reads one (dat/GP_TITLE.pak, hardcoded). GP_OPTIONS has 14 builds, GP_SAVE_LOAD 18, GP_DIALOG 105, GP_TUTORIAL 2. So LOAD GAME, TUTORIAL, OPTIONS and the NEW GAME difficulty chain are not blocked on the Decoder and need no format work. They are an exporter scope limit, and the exporter is the port's. Prioritised by the filter adopted after the plate: 'if this is wrong, what does a player experience?' Four dead menu entries beat an audio level, which beats timing minutiae. Flagged as NOT established: that the screens render (is_build says the record parses, not that sprites resolve or names are known), which GP_DIALOG entry is the difficulty dialog, and that more screens are free -- every one joins check-all's per-screen comparisons and needs a naming decision. Next unit widens to GP_OPTIONS only. Not all four: 139 new screens at once would make any regression unattributable. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
e5a14cde56 |
port: WITHDRAW 'the plate never blinks' -- it always did, and I tested the wrong property
The pulse has been implemented since 2026-08-30: authored/timing.json
looping_focus_records maps press_start/ptbtn00 -> ptbtn00f at period_units 120,
kind measured. The Decoder's independent figures (120 units, peak 80, ~51 of 60
frames) match the declared record on all three counts.
Verified rather than argued: 502 samples from a filmed boot folded onto the
declared 120-unit period reproduce the declared curve under ONE solved gain --
4.2% rms, with the flat top (phases 36-47, the alpha-80 plateau) and the flat
zero (108-119) both landing where declared. A sine of the same period fits 5.7x
worse, so it is the declared SHAPE and not just the period.
🔴 How I got it wrong: I measured 'does it return to dark'. It never does, BY
DESIGN -- the pulse is an additive glow over a base held at 255. I recorded an
11.6% ripple at a ~120-unit period, which WAS the pulse at exactly its declared
period, and attributed it to background leaking through my glyph mask.
I tested a property the feature was never supposed to have, and the authored
entry said so in its own words before I started. I read the disc's ptbtn00
keyframes, saw 244:0, and never read the port's own configuration for the element
I was measuring.
No code change. The arrival half of the page stands.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c69944b879 |
port: the rate's independent leg survived a challenge, and a failure mode recurred
The Decoder re-ran both flagged findings rather than arguing them. The pulse ratio -- the leg under rate=0.5 that is independent of the other two -- came back 0.1000 over 16 clean cycles and 0.0993 on a second capture, unchanged by the full-quad reader. Recorded in the authored why, because a leg that has survived a challenge to its own instrument is worth more than one merely repeated. Unit 10's conclusion survives (the parent multiplies in, so F6's gate is unaffected) but its quoted numbers were a printed subset standing in for the population -- the second time that exact error has appeared in evidence this port consumed. Recorded as a pattern rather than a slip: a summary drawn from a subset does not look like an error, it looks like a result, and neither instance was reachable by reasoning because the argument was valid and the inputs were wrong. No code change: both conclusions stand. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
dd1da9b698 |
port: WITHDRAW 'the port draws a sweep the game does not' -- pteff03a IS drawn
Refuted by the Decoder (f6-unit11): the two strips are batched into a single additive eight-vertex draw -- two quads -- and their log reader took the first vertex match per draw line and discarded the rest. Every analysis saw quad A and never quad B. No new capture was needed; pteff03a was in the same logs that were read as declaring it absent. Three of my claims fall with it, including one I put in a report to the human: 'the port draws two, the game's capture has one'. The port draws two and so does the game. My census stands; it now AGREES with the capture instead of contradicting it. ✅ Nothing in the port changed. I proposed gating pteff03a and held, because absence in one capture read by one probe is a lead not a finding, and because the check I asked for was a human's look rather than another measurement. That hold is the only reason this cost nothing. ⚠️ The absence claim cited the port drawing pteff03a as evidence the PORT was wrong -- a defect inferred in my renderer from a gap in a reader. Recorded generally: an absence is a claim about an instrument, not the world. A count of zero says only that nothing got through the reader. Every positive result on the same capture is untouched because those compare like with like on one quad; only the absence compared a count against zero. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b0e5c82f57 |
port: the leaf rate's 🟡 lifts -- three independent confirmations, and a stale caveat removed
The 1.7x/3.2x title-clock conflict I was carrying as an open doubt against every unit-valued figure on the title was never a conflict: the Decoder had been applying the plate's declared ramp to ptcopyright. One mislabelled element generated the whole discrepancy. Same shape as the port gating a snap on settle_instant while reading a printed number that came from settle_time(). Two elements, one label. In both cases what caught it was measuring a RATIO, which needs no identification, rather than a value, which does. rate 0.5 now rests on three declared quantities that agree, the third unrelated to the first: ptloop01's 30-unit ramp, the leaf's 600-unit loop, and ptbtn00f's pulse at exactly 1/10 of that loop (60.0 frames over 16 cycles, zero variance). Also recorded: the plate's pulse is now measured -- ptbtn00f, 120 title units, peak alpha 80, drawn 51 of 60 frames. NOT implemented: the plate's blink is neither F5 nor F6, and the human's standing note is that its delay is accepted. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
8c282e4249 |
port: census -- the port draws exactly TWO travelling lights
The human reports the real game shows multiple, possibly more than two, running along blue PCB-like traces, and cannot tell whether it is one light per line or one glow spanning several. Census of declared travel over every title element: only pteff03 (2160 px) and pteff03a (2560 px) move as lights. The logo pair travels 300 px but is the logo sliding in. Everything else -- pteff00/01/02/04, ptlogo_back2eff and eff1..5, ptlogoall_eff/eff2, ptcopyright, ptbase2 -- declares no travel at all. So the port renders two full-height streaks crossing the screen where the human describes a population of smaller lights. Both agents had been asking WHEN the sweep starts; the port may have the wrong effect altogether, and 'starts too early' is what a wrong effect looks like to someone not reading keyframes. Limit flagged on the Decoder's scan: it covered quads taller than 1.2 NDC, so it cannot count small per-trace lights. pteff03a's absence stands (3.62 NDC); 'only one travelling quad exists' does not generalise below the filter. Limit flagged on this census: it reads DECLARED positional keyframes, so it cannot see UV-scroll or shader-driven motion -- now a live possibility. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6213c92ce2 |
port: kill the variant-link explanation for the extra sweep
The Decoder's candidate 2 -- 'a focus/variant link means only one of the pair is active' -- is answerable from the export and the answer is no. It looked strong: ptloop01 carries opt_link=ptloop02.rat, it is the only linked element on the title, the field comes straight from el.focus_link, and the port never reads it. But surveying opt_link across the whole export splits it in two: *f.rat targets are variant-only, everything else is a top-level element drawn in its own right. And the second population chains across kinds -- on main_menu, ptloop01 -> ptloop02 -> ptbtn01 -> ptbtn01f. A light sweep points at a BUTTON, which a variant selector cannot do. So opt_link is a chain pointer that lands on the focus variant when the element happens to be a button, which is why it was exported as focus_link. Candidate eliminated; the port ignoring it is not what draws the extra sweep. Surviving smaller finding: focus_link carries two different things and is named after one. Nothing depends on it today. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
d53e621d36 |
port: the port draws a second sweep the capture does not -- and my size argument was wrong
CORRECTION FIRST: I refuted the Decoder's by-size identification on the ground that both sweep sprites are 399x180. Wrong -- I compared source PNGs and never read the leaf scales, which are [100,600] and [100,800], so the DRAWN quads differ by a third. That is exactly the 3.15 vs 3.62 NDC they were separating by. Size distinguishes them fine. The hold was right, the check found a real defect, but my stated reason did not survive. Which sharpens the real lead: because size DOES separate them, 'pteff03a does not appear in this capture at all' is well-evidenced. The port draws it -- confirmed at t=120/180/240 -- on screen from t~108 to t~521, right-to-left at 800% scale, inside the window the capture covers. A second glow arriving at t~108 is a good candidate for 'the glow starts too early'. One capture, one probe, identified by size: a lead, not a finding. Also recorded a failed approach: isolating the sweeps by differencing --time frames does not work, because during a build-in everything else is moving too. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
359f0d8bff |
port: fit-trajectory -- position carries the clock, alpha carries almost nothing
Answering the human's 'what is holding you up': two agents spent three exchanges on ALPHA while the answer sat in a POSITION series neither of us compared to anything. The arithmetic that should have been step one: the Decoder's quoted sweep centre -1.690 read as NDC is -441.6 px, and the declared position at leaf t=0 is -439.5 px. A 2 px agreement on a 2160 px travel -- so the game's sweep begins travelling at leaf t~0, the same as the port. That CONTRADICTS my own earlier framing on this page, which blamed ~135 units on the leaf clock. If the game's leaf clock also starts at 0 then F6 is a visibility question, not a clock question. Flagged rather than rewritten: it rests on two numbers relayed in a message, which is what should be read from the repo instead. The tool: solves x(frame) ~= declared(t0 + rate*frame) for both parameters and reports the RESIDUAL, which says whether the model was right at all. Selftest runs both directions -- recovers a known clock to 0.09 px and rejects a wrong-shape series at 81.9 px against a 20 px bar. In check-all. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
88d7656f50 |
port: the sweep identification resolved -- and my proposed repair was wrong
Travel direction settled it: both rows travel LEFT->RIGHT, so both are pteff03
split across two keys by per-frame rounding. pteff03a is not in the capture.
So my 'the finding may still be correct via the OTHER row' does not apply --
there is no other row. I was right that size could not carry the assignment and
wrong about what the assignment was.
The larger half was not visible from here: the quoted low alphas were the nine
lowest DISTINCT values, not a series -- 14 sub-floor samples out of 1754. The
bound survives in shape and collapses in weight.
Status 🟡. Renderer still unchanged.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c3a09edfb7 |
port: HOLD the parent-alpha adoption -- the two sweep sprites are the same size
The Decoder's bound refutes screen_view.gd's 'parent alpha NOT multiplied in'. Premise verified here: pteff03's leaf floors at 128, so a drawn alpha below that cannot come from the leaf alone. But the identification is 'by size', and pteff03 and pteff03a are BOTH 399x180 -- consistent with the two reported rows measuring 1.38x3.15 and 1.39x3.15. Size separates the sweeps from the screen, not from each other. That flips the cited row: pteff03a's leaf floors at 0 and ramps 0->128 over t=0..150, so 8/24/33/50 is exactly that leaf alone. The conclusion may still hold via the OTHER row (16 with a 128-131 cluster is pteff03's signature) -- the finding may be right and the cited row wrong. Free discriminator already in their capture: the leaves travel in OPPOSITE directions, ~1000 px apart. Renderer unchanged until the row is identified. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b4d53b758d |
port: F6 unit a -- where the sweep IS when the plate arrives, and a window that settles two questions
Answers the Decoder's direct question: the port positions the leaf from the LEAF's own clock, it does not draw the parent's pose and ignore the translation. Computed from the leaf translation: pteff03 enters the frame at t=61 and is mid-screen (x=305) when the plate reaches full alpha at t=236 -- visible and travelling for ~175 units before the plate. And screen_view.gd's own flagged limit -- 'a capture during t=100..238 would separate' leaf-wins from parent-ignored-because-it-draws-nothing -- is the SAME interval F6 is about. Applying the parent would hide the sweep until t=70 and dim it to t=100, which accounts for ~40 units of the earliness but not the other ~175. One capture in that window settles both questions. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c0ae460af7 |
port: F6 unit a -- what starts the title sweep, and the gate that does not exist
No behaviour change. The start mechanism is one expression, screen_view.gd:684: var t := leaf_time_units if leaf_time_units >= 0.0 else time_units leaf_time_units is set only by the --leaf-time diagnostic and is -1.0 on every real boot, so the sweep rides the title's own clock from 0 with no offset. Refuted the obvious reading, which was mine before checking: ptloop01/02 declare 0:0 70:0 100:255, so the parents LOOK like the gate. They are not -- the leaf is what reaches the screen and the parent's alpha is decoded as not multiplied in. pteff03's leaf declares 0:255 and is travelling from t=0; the plate arrives at t=214-236, so the port starts the sweep ~150 units (~2.5 s) early, which is the size and direction the human reported. A start time is an OFFSET and leaf_time_units is an ABSOLUTE override; the one-line edit is a subtraction at 684 fed by one authored value. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
19c530410d | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
MechaCat02
|
fee2e4278a |
agents: one item only -- the title's animation timing -- and split work into human-checkable units
Some checks failed
Two new findings from the human, both about WHEN a title animation starts, and both handed over rather than guessed: F5 Does (A) SNAP the title to finished, or ACCELERATE it? The human says they cannot tell and is right that they cannot -- a three-frame acceleration and a one-frame cut look identical to an eye. Two routes that should agree: a per-frame capture (acceleration shows intermediate alphas, a cut shows none) and the code (assigning a target time and raising a rate multiplier are different instructions). Their "looks more like a snap on multiple attempts" is recorded as a PRIOR, not a result. F6 The title's sweeping white glow -- ptloop01/ptloop02, the blue PCB-like lines -- starts only when the plate appears in the real game, and starts earlier in the port. A lead from the exported declaration, mine and unverified: those elements are keyed at t = 0, 70, 100, 238, 250 while the plate reaches full alpha at 236, with pteff02 keyed at exactly 236 and ptlogo_back2eff and ptcopyright at 238. 236-238 is a synchronisation point in the declared data and a human just reported a behaviour change there. Flagged AGAINST itself too: 238...250 looks equally like an exit ramp -- ptcopyright uses that shape and starts nothing -- and the sweep lives in a nested .rat leaf with its own timeline. F6 bears on clock: "shared" and on F4: if a title element does not move until the plate arrives, either the declared data says so and our keyframe reading is wrong, or something at the plate's arrival STARTS it, which is a mechanism nobody has proposed. And the process change, which is the human's and outlives this item: "attacking the 'whole' mission was too big for them to handle. Split the given missions and tasks into even smaller tasks which they can tackle and give to a human for feedback." PROTOCOL.md gains "Work in units a human can check in a minute". A milestone is not a unit of work, it is a bag of them. A unit is right-sized when it ends in something a person can judge in under a minute WITHOUT READING ANYTHING, and each one states its question, what the human looks at, and what it does NOT cover. Do one, hand it over, stop -- an unverified fix under a second change makes a regression two-variable. The evidence for the rule is this week: the splash sat through a whole milestone and took one day once scoped to "does it animate?". The bar is a HUMAN check, not a green tool -- three instruments passed a frozen screen. |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
6438316f24 |
agents: correct "both clocks" -- there is ONE, and F4 tests whether it is right
Some checks failed
I wrote "whether the game snaps both clocks forward" into yesterday's F4 and the human asked which clocks. There are none: authored/flow.json sets `clock: "shared"`, so the title's two composited builds -- build 4 the artwork (finishes t~=118) and build 2/3 the plate (full alpha t=236) -- run on ONE clock started together. Left standing, that phrasing sends an agent hunting for a second clock this corpus says does not exist. Corrected in both briefs and in the playtest page, marked as a correction rather than silently edited. And the question is better than I first framed it. `clock: "shared"` is AUTHORED, and the port's own plate-arrival-halves.md calls it "not falsified... not confirmed to better than ~20 % either", with an unresolved anchor disagreement inside one binary: the reconciliation picked t=118 while settle_time() returns 160 and the boot prints "settles at t=160". So F4 is a TEST OF THAT PREMISE, and the discriminator is observable -- press (A) early, while the wordmark is still building in, and watch the ARTWORK rather than the plate: advances the shared clock -> the artwork SNAPS to finished only forces the plate -> the artwork KEEPS ANIMATING its build-in Both briefs now say to answer F4 before building on `shared`, and tell the port not to choose what "jump" means. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
937f05595c |
port: the menu repeat mechanism, with NO rate -- deliberately inert
F1: the human watched the real game and it repeats on a held direction, on the stick AND (confirmed separately) the d-pad. gamepad.gd had predicted this exact refutation in its own words, so one-step-per-deflection stops being the conservative reading and becomes a known defect. Mechanism: Gamepad.held_direction() polls the DEVICES -- not Input.is_action_pressed, because ui_up/ui_down sit on the stick at Godot's 0.50 deadzone while the port steps at the game's measured 0.61, so polling the action would repeat through the exact band ENTER exists to exclude. Boot._menu_repeat() re-applies the same guards a real press gets, rather than sharing them, because a second input path is where this port's defects hide. The RATE is NOT shipped, on instruction: an invented interval is indistinguishable from a measured one later. An earlier draft of this change had 0.40/0.20 with a why attached; that was the named failure mode and the numbers are removed, not commented out. repeat_due() returns 0 until both are set. Flagged at the adoption site: verify-input's 'a held stick is ONE step, not six' asserts the ABSENCE of this feature and will go red when a rate lands -- for the right reason, and looking exactly like the jitter bug returning. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
ca9806d93d |
merge origin/main: P5 gate met; keep Q10 answered, do not claim P6
main's P6 row reads 'Looping is blocked on HANDOFF Q10' while main's OWN HANDOFF.md line 39 marks Q10 answered -- the row was stale, not a decision, so the resolution keeps the answered status rather than silently un-resolving it. P5 takes main's line verbatim: that is the human's gate call and not mine. P6 explicitly does NOT claim the gate -- the same play-test found the SFX mix wrong, and 'sound on the P5 gate' means the RIGHT sound. |
||
|
MechaCat02
|
18620e99aa |
agents: P5's gate is MET, and four findings from the same walk
Some checks failed
"Menu walk and navigation is fine. Video skips too. Extras open. New Game shows new game intro video." -- 2026-09-02 P5 is done. Its gate was "a human clicks through it", the retro said it had been waiting on that and not on code for the whole milestone, and it has happened. PORT-MISSION.md updated. The NEW GAME gap is accepted as-is. Four findings, three of them the Decoder's: F1 THE MENU REPEATS ON A HELD DIRECTION AND OURS DOES NOT. One step per deflection was authored as the conservative choice because nobody knew; a human has now watched the real game and it repeats, "at a medium pace... slow enough to see which item is selected". That settles the existence half of H1 against us. The RATE is still unmeasured and must not be guessed -- the description bounds it and supplies no number. Decoder measures initial delay and repeat interval as frame counts; the port implements the mechanism and waits for the numbers. F2 THE SFX ARE TOO LOUD BECAUSE THERE IS NO MIX AT ALL. Measured: confirm -17.7 dB mean / -0.0 dB peak, 3 dB hotter in mean than the music and 6.4 dB above move. No volume or gain value exists anywhere in export/ or authored/, so every clip plays at unity on one bus. Decoder: is per-cue or per-bus gain on the disc -- the cue table is the obvious place and cue 1103 is already decoded. Port: gains at PLAYBACK as data, and explicitly NOT normalisation in the exporter, which destroys the relationship between clips and cannot be undone by a modder. F3 SOMETHING IS MISSING ON THE TITLE SCREEN. The export carries one music file and the port plays nothing on the title. Which cue does the title play, and is there a sting on the plate or on accept? A negative needs a positive control: find the menu's cue by the same method first. F4 (A) SKIPS FORWARD THROUGH THE BOOT AND WE IMPLEMENT TWO OF THREE PRESSES. In the game: skip video, reveal plate immediately, accept plate. The middle one is missing here. Whether the game snaps both clocks forward or only reveals the plate is a question, not a detail -- and it is a cheap second route to the plate-arrival question, since a press that skips to the plate says where the game thinks the plate belongs. H3, the plate delay, is ACCEPTED -- "feels the same... sufficient". Left unattributed rather than closed green. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
efa085a668 |
port: H3 re-asked -- the plate is ON TIME, and it never blinks
PLAYTEST-2026-09-02 asks for this re-ask by name, and the previous plate numbers were taken through the pose_at bug -- the same accident that manufactured H2's false green. Filmed a real boot and isolated the plate with its own sprite's transparent holes: same rect, same rows, interleaved at pixel scale, so the moving title sweep cancels. Two earlier isolations failed first and are recorded -- a rect that overlapped the developer splash, and a control band 55px away that could not cancel a sweep that MOVES. Onset: flat through ou=213.9, risen by 222.1, declared t=214 inside the bracket; 88% of lit by t=238 against declared full at 236. NOT late. But over 8.1 declared cycles (ou 6..1974) it never returns within 88% of dark, where the disc declares 0 from t=244. rest.t=236 is the PULSE PEAK and holding parks it there -- the exact family plate-arrival-halves.md named for transients and nobody had checked on the plate itself. Proposed, not changed: whether the guest pulses the plate is the Decoder's. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
6263686841 |
port: the developer splash declares TWO shapes -- and the port draws both, per element
The publisher shape check covered one element on one screen, which I flagged: a port applying one screen-wide ramp to everything would have passed it. developer_logos declares gamearts/seta flat across 15..30 and anima decaying 17% over the same interval. Same screen, same frames, same clock -- the two flat elements are the control for the third, and any phase or rate error hits all three alike. Pre-registered, then filmed. Flat ones flat to five decimals (+0.00000), anima decays. Fitted scale-free against declared curves: each element matches its own at 0.49/0.50/2.18% max error and the OTHER shape at 8.1-8.8% -- 4-17x, both directions. Establishes the ramp is per-element, not just correctly shaped. |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
61948f7096 | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
MechaCat02
|
0ba7542547 |
agents: the logo splashes are DONE -- the human cannot tell them from the game
Some checks failed
"Looks good! Cannot notice any obvious difference from the actual game.
Mark logos as done." -- 2026-09-02
Not "the check passes": a person compared the port against the real game and
could not tell them apart. That is the oracle, and it is the strongest result
this port has produced. The sole-focus order is lifted; both agents return to
their milestones.
The fix was one word -- pose_at ASSIGNED the settle instant instead of clamping
to it, so every query returned the settled pose whatever the clock said. The
same line manufactured the false green: the capture harness shoots after two
frames, so it was photographing t~=2 units, which looked settled only because
everything looked settled. The 0.01 % agreement that closed H2 was measured
through the accident. One bug produced the defect AND the evidence of its
absence.
Verified here before it went to the human, by film rather than by claim:
motion 16.4 % -> 27.7 %, distinct luma states 26 -> 43, the publisher ramp 6
steps -> 13 in one continuous run, and the developer splash's interrupting
0.50 s freeze gone. The publisher trajectory rises to a peak and settles back --
the crossfade signature.
The port then closed a gap motion-census names in its own header ("a wrong ramp
that moves every frame passes here") with a shape check pre-registered from the
disc, measured off a film, on a non-overlapped strip, in ratios so the texture
divides out: rise:last declared 1.20, measured 1.20 exact.
Kept as the standing lesson, because it is the fourth instance: an instrument
that sits below the thing under test cannot see it fail. Ask of any new check
what it would still report if the feature were entirely absent.
Explicitly NOT claimed: P5's gate is "a human clicks through it" and nobody has
said the milestone is met. The briefs say so, and say not to record it on the
human's behalf.
The decoder's end-to-end pipeline work returns to normal priority rather than
being dropped -- it is what decides whether the port's 60 units/s matches the
game. The ramp is now right in SHAPE and unverified in DURATION.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
bc0718b18c |
port: the committed captures are CROPS, not resamples -- measured, and it saves a lot of evidence
The Decoder read Canary's cvars (present_letterbox true, safe area 100) and drew the consequence that "everything either of us measures off a PNG carries the resample -- every RMSE against a capture, every glyph count, every surface mean, and the motion-census numbers on both sides." That is a caveat on a very large amount of shared evidence, so it was worth one measurement before anyone started qualifying results with it. Pre-registered: if the captures carry a scale, SCALING this port's 1280x720 render to 1279x675 should beat CROPPING it. If they are crops, the reverse. render cropped to 1279x675 RMSE 558.1 (0.85 %) render scaled to 1279x675 RMSE 10118.8 (15.4 %) Cropping is 18x better. A 0.9375 vertical scale would put every feature on the wrong row, and the residual under scaling is exactly what that looks like. REFUTED: the consequence. Pixel comparisons against the committed captures are like-for-like. NOT REFUTED: the cvar reading. Canary may letterbox by default; this says nothing about that. It says the capture path used for the corpus did not go through it -- presenter bypassed, window 1:1, or the tool cropped the letterbox before saving. Which, nobody has established. 📌 And a second line already agreed, one page away, unconnected: ui-render-tone-curve.md records every committed capture aligning against our render at exactly dy=0 dx=0, correlation 0.9466. A 0.9375 vertical scale cannot produce a zero-offset alignment. The evidence for "crop" was already in the corpus, next to the surface-size puzzle it explains. Unchanged and worth keeping: their gamma negative (VdGetCurrentDisplayGamma is kStub, the splash shader is four ALU ops with no pow/ramp/lookup), the vertex-stream path being the better instrument where a question can be asked of it, and motion-census never having been at risk -- a resample preserves change. Reach: one capture, one screen. Enough to refute a universal; not enough to establish that no capture anywhere carries a resample. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
2f9f21d7c1 |
port: the splash ramp is the DECLARED ramp -- shape checked, not just motion
motion-census says in its own header that it cannot do this: "a wrong ramp that moves every frame passes here." So having restored the motion, this checks the shape. Pre-registered from the disc. palogo_sqex_eff declares 0:0 -> 15:255 -> 30:212 -> 45:0, so three straight runs with breakpoints at 15 and 30, the middle slope ~1/5 the magnitude of the last, and the rise ~1.2x the last. Measured from a FILM of a real boot, on the companion's top strip (686x11+299+319) which no other element overlaps, so it is that element's own alpha rather than a composite: units 5.6-13.0 +0.00509 /unit rise units 16-28 -0.00090 /unit gentle fall units 31-43 -0.00423 /unit steep fall unit 46.4 0.00000 gone Breakpoints land where declared: the rise stops between 13.0 and 16.1, the gentle fall steepens between 28.4 and 31.4. ratio middle:last declared 0.203 measured 0.213 (within 5 %) ratio rise:last declared 1.20 measured 1.20 (exact) So the port interpolates piecewise-linearly across the declared segments, which is what the Decoder independently measured the game doing -- 28 distinct alphas over 28 consecutive presents, modal steps -3 and -14 against predicted -2.87 and -14.13. ⚠️ RATIOS, NOT ABSOLUTES, and deliberately. The strip mean is an alpha scaled by the sprite's own pixels; its absolute value carries the texture. A ratio between segments divides that out, which is the only reason the shape is checkable from a composite at all. What this does NOT establish, stated rather than implied: that it LOOKS right -- three instruments have now agreed with a picture a human called wrong, and a fourth agreeing does not change the standing of the fifth. Nor anything about the developer splash's three pairs. Nor the absolute alpha. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
8477242656 |
port: a check that measures CHANGE, run against the defect it was written for
Closes the two items the play-test left after the fix landed. 1. tools/port/verify-motion, wired into check-all with its control. It films a REAL boot -- no --time, no pinning -- and hands it to tools/motion-census. The window is the DECLARED build-in (publisher t=0..45, 0.75 s at 60 units/s), so it asks about the interval the disc says is animating and nothing else. 🔴 BOTH SIDES MEASURED, not one measured and one assumed. I reverted the single operator in pose_at, ran this check against the defect, and restored it: broken (ASSIGNS the settle instant) 40 % and it FAILED fixed (clamps to it) 86 % and it passed The bar of 60 sits mid-gap: 20 points above the defect, 26 below the fix. 🔴 AND MY FIRST VERSION OF THAT BAR WAS JUSTIFIED BY A NUMBER I HAD NOT MEASURED. It claimed "~40 points of clearance on both sides"; with a 1.0 s window the real clearance was 5 points, because that window includes 0.25 s of legitimate hold and dilutes the signal. A bar defended by an unmeasured number is this whole check's own defect, one level up. Corrected with the measurements and the sequence stated. The control runs FIRST and is not optional: motion-census --selftest drives a fade, a switch and a frozen film through the same loader and floor. If it cannot separate those three, every number the check reports is decoration. Then the --control mode builds a frozen film from the port's own pixels -- one real boot frame repeated -- and requires it to FAIL. It scores 0 %. One defect in the check itself, caught by running it: `ls | head` under `set -o pipefail` exits 141 before asserting anything, and a check that dies before checking looks a lot like a check that passed. 2. BLOCKED.md H2 corrected from ✅ to 🟡, against myself. The MECHANISM half stands -- no post-process pass, the blur is a baked companion texture. The BEHAVIOUR half was false and the row asserted it: I wrote "the port draws all seven quads -- verified by a frozen sweep". True, and it did not mean what I used it for. A frozen sweep drives the clock BY HAND. It proves the renderer can draw pose N and says nothing about the poses being drawn in sequence while running. All three of my instruments passed the defect -- frozen sweep, a 0.01 % settled comparison (a frozen screen matches a settled reference PERFECTLY), and an achieved-fps counter (identical pixels 25x/s score like animating). Every one measured throughput or a pose; none measured CHANGE. Same shape as InputEventAction bypassing the input map. Not settled: the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; findings 3 and 4's remaining halves. Both were explicitly deferred by the human until this was fixed, and it now is. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
8aa7050309 | Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into auto/port-p6-audio | ||
|
MechaCat02
|
3cc3400a96 |
agents: the splash does not animate, and three instruments could not see it
Some checks failed
A human on a GPU at ~140 fps: "the logos just switch, there is no animation at
all." Measured from a real boot with --film at 0.05 s, then per-frame change:
splash moves 1.30 s of 7.95 s = 16.4 %
publisher splash 0.30 s of motion, then 3.20 s FROZEN
developer splash 0.35 s + 0.25 s, then 2.40 s FROZEN
distinct luma states in 7.95 s 26
A 45-unit build-in cannot be drawn in 26 states, and a fade does not hold one
picture for 3.20 s. The frame counter says 24.8 fps achieved; both are true --
the port is DRAWING 25 times a second and CHANGING almost never.
🔴 Why every check passed, which matters more than the bug:
frozen sweep drives the clock BY HAND -- proves the renderer can draw
pose N, never that the poses are drawn in sequence
settled compare 0.01 % against the capture -- a screen frozen 84 % of the
time matches a settled reference PERFECTLY, that is what
frozen means
achieved fps counts frames DRAWN -- the same pixels 25x/s scores
identically to animating
Every one measured throughput or a pose. None measured CHANGE. Same shape as
InputEventAction bypassing the input map: the instrument sat below the thing
that was broken, so the break could not appear in it.
tools/motion-census closes the class. It measures change and nothing else, and
its --selftest asserts it separates a fade (97.4 % moving) from a switch (2.6 %)
from a frozen film (0.0 %) -- a detector that cannot tell those apart would
report the same green line on all three.
Both briefs: this is the SOLE focus. The port reproduces before changing
anything and gates every fix on a film rather than a still. The decoder maps the
whole pipeline end to end -- disc bytes, the game's per-frame update (does it
interpolate between keyframes or hold?), what is submitted per frame, and what
Canary does to it before a capture records it -- delivered as a SERIES, not a
settled value.
The port should also record the refutation against itself: H2 reads ANSWERED on
the strength of the frozen sweep. The mechanism half stands, the blur is a baked
companion texture. The behaviour half does not.
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b88e2e38b1 |
port: record that the blend oracle's instrument was container-only until today
From the Decoder's audit of their own /canary checkout, not from anything visible on this side. They applied their own lesson rather than stating it, and the exposure was four logger commits deep, not one. The sharpest bears directly on what this port shipped. `0f920e645` adds `blend=` per draw, and without it a draw log records NO BLEND STATE AT ALL -- so ui-blend-mode-decoded.md's 35-element oracle, the evidence on which this port DELETED its authored additive map, could not be re-derived by anyone who cloned this repository. Not approximately. Not at all. It is reproducible now: four container-only commits exported as patches on their branch with a rebuild recipe. Named in prose without a resolvable path, since that directory is not in this checkout and citing it as one would be the exact defect check-citations exists to catch. What it changes: nothing is retracted. The measurement was real when made and is now portable, and the trade was still right -- a screen-name map cannot answer for a screen nobody drove to, so the decoded field is better regardless. What it changes is what "decoded" was resting on: for the window between adoption and export, this port had deleted an authored entry in favour of a field whose supporting oracle nobody else could regenerate. 📌 Theirs, and the durable line: a finding is only as portable as the tool that produced it, and a reproduce recipe that READS as complete is the dangerous kind. Theirs named shas, which is why four commits sat unexported while one was noticed. ⚠️ And this port cannot check the class from here. check-citations scans repo paths; an instrument living in another container is not a path at all. The only defence available on this side is asking what produced a number before adopting it -- which is a habit, not a check, and does not run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
7a0318c2c0 |
port: a reproduce recipe naming a path off this repo is not a recipe
From the Decoder's catch at shutdown, not my own. They found their Canary logger change -- the texture content hash -- living UNCOMMITTED in /canary, a checkout pushed nowhere. Two committed findings could not be reproduced without it: it is the field separating "the buffer rotated" from "a frame was decoded", and its absence is what cost two withdrawn positions on units/second in one day. They committed it and exported it into the repo as a patch. Their generalisation applies here too, so I audited this side at the same moment. One real instance: DECISIONS.md cited `/reborn/docs/re/captures/main-menu-oracle.png` as the evidence for a decision. The capture IS in the repository, at docs/re/captures/main-menu-oracle.png -- only the path was stale, left by the monorepo move. Fixed. The other /reborn mentions are deliberate: one warns the mount is empty, one is a table row listing the pattern as an example of what not to do. ⚠️ tools/port/check-citations does NOT catch this class, and the gap is named rather than quietly left: it scans for REPO paths that fail to resolve, and an absolute path is not a repo path, so it slips through. Extending it to flag off-repo absolutes -- especially ones whose basename does resolve in-repo, the recoverable case -- is the obvious next increment and is deliberately NOT done here. It was found minutes before a shutdown, and a hasty checker is worse than a named gap. Index regenerated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
15702d0d05 |
port: the game's clock is frame-based, ours is time-based, and 60 is finally supported
The --framerate_limit=30 run refuted the time-based reading on every discriminating row, against its author's own expectation: modal alpha step stayed 17 where time-based predicts 34, units/second halved to 30.2, the publisher dwell doubled to 8.450 s. Both controls passed FIRST -- the limiter demonstrably took effect, and all 8 splash quad rects were identical, so nothing but the frame rate differed. 255 x 1 / 15 = 17 at 28.4, 51.4 and 54.8 presents/s alike. THE GAME ADVANCES 1 UNIT PER PRESENTED FRAME. This port advances `time_units += delta * units_per_second`. Two different mechanisms that agree at exactly one frame rate -- 60 Hz, the only rate the console ever asked the game to be right at. 🔴 DO NOT MAKE THE PORT FRAME-BASED TO MATCH THE GAME, and the reason is now in authored/timing.json so nobody "fixes" it. A time-based port reproduces a 60 Hz console on hardware that is not 60 Hz; a frame-based one drifts on every machine that is not -- and this port has measured ITSELF between 9.7 and 69.4 fps depending on the renderer. Matching the game's mechanism would import a fragility the game never had to survive, because the game only ever ran on one box. ⚠️ BUT IT SHARPENS WHAT 60 CLAIMS. If units/second IS the present rate, then `keyframe_units_per_second = 60` is no longer "the unit is 1/60 s". It is "the game presented these screens at 60 Hz on the console" -- a harder statement, and checkable. ✅ And supported for the first time. Canary unlimited presents at 51-55 Hz with a splash dwell of 4.30/4.60/4.37 s. A natively 30 Hz game would present at ~30 in Canary too -- the framerate_limit run proves it, since forcing 30 made that same splash take 8.45 s. It does not take 8.45 s unforced. So the game asks for ~60. Kept as `authored`, not promoted: this is inference over three measurements rather than a measurement of units per second. It becomes `measured` when someone reads the console's present rate for these screens directly. 🔴 AND IT CLOSES THE CONSTANT AS A CAUSE OF FINDING 3, in the direction that matters. Under the frame-based model the only alternative is a 30 Hz console, which puts the plate at 236/30 = 7.87 s -- LATER than the 3.93 s shipping, not earlier. There is NO console present rate that makes the plate arrive sooner than this port already shows it. The human reported it late; no value of this constant can produce that. The method note is theirs and it is the durable part: four positions on this number were inference over a measured quantity; this one changed an input and watched what moved. The opportunistic comparison -- two captures that happened to differ -- pointed exactly the wrong way, because nothing controlled what else differed between them. One designed capture settled it against its author's expectation. Not settled: finding 3, still with no surviving cause; the clock origin, which they are taking next and which every ratio and count in this account survives; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; the allowance's grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c6b3256574 |
port: withdraw my "no hold" finding -- the port holds, and 60 is now positively supported
The Decoder withdrew 120 and returned to 60, which the port never left. Nothing has to be undone. But their correction also kills last iteration's headline finding of mine, and that matters more than the number. 🔴 WITHDRAWN: "the port has no hold" and "two errors that cancel". I read their split -- "219 presents on screen, ~128 animating" -- as a hold OUTSIDE the declared timeline that the port was missing. It is a split WITHIN it. The publisher ramps 0-30, HOLDS 30-235 (205 units, 80.4 % of the screen) and fades 235-255, and this port plays all three. Measured rather than read. Frozen samples of the logo region: t=0.25 s (15 u) 0.390957 mid-ramp t=1.00 s (60 u) 0.405488 t=2.00 s (120 u) 0.405488 t=3.00 s (180 u) 0.405488 t=3.80 s (228 u) 0.405488 identical to six decimals across 168 units t=4.20 s (252 u) 0.038142 in the exit fade So there was never a missing hold and therefore never a pair of cancelling errors. authored/timing.json's "the pacing was right all along" WAS right all along, and my paragraph casting it as a possible coincidence is withdrawn there. ⚠️ The failure was not a mis-measurement. I took a two-part split from someone else's instrument and assumed its boundary sat where my own model put it. Presents are not units, and "animating vs holding" in presents does not decompose the same way as "ramp vs hold" in declared units. That is a new failure shape for this corpus and it is worth the name. ✅ AND THE DWELL FIGURES ARE NOW POSITIVE EVIDENCE, not survivors. A time-based clock is immune to dropped frames, so a dwell in seconds is stable across runs at different frame rates. The port's own splash dwell across a 4.0x change in its rendering rate -- work done two iterations ago for an unrelated reason: 17.3 fps -> 4.28 s 19.6 -> 4.26 25.0 -> 4.27 69.4 -> 4.26 a 0.5 % spread, putting 255 units at 59.6-59.9 units/s every time. 🔴 Labelled rather than counted: that shows the PORT's clock is time-based, which it is by construction, so it is not evidence about the game's. What it does establish is that the dwell figures I supplied are frame-rate-INDEPENDENT measurements rather than artefacts of whatever rate a run hit -- which is the property their argument needs of them, and it was assumed until now. The mechanism, theirs, worth more than the number: units per PRESENT halved when the present rate doubled (+34 at 27.2 presents/s, +17 at 51.4) while units per SECOND did not move (54.4 vs 51.4). "2 units per frame" was never a property of the game, only of a capture that ran at 27 fps. 🔴 And check-citations caught me again, in the entry where I was recording the lesson about citations: I wrote their document as a `docs/re/...md` path that does not resolve here. The check does not care about the disclaimer next to it, which is correct. Named without a path now. Finding 3 is OPEN AGAIN with no surviving named cause. Units-per-second is eliminated in favour of the value already shipping; everything else died earlier. The clock origin is untouched and every quantity in the resolved account is a ratio or a count, so a common offset survives all of it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c24ea3ba0e |
port: my falsifier was malformed, and following it through found two errors that cancel
CONCEDED. I set the falsifier as "at 120 the publisher splash runs 2.125 s against cold boots measuring 4.30/4.60/4.37". 2.125 s is the declared ANIMATION length; 4.3 s is how long the SCREEN is up. The screen holds after the timeline ends, so those are different quantities and the comparison would have found a contradiction at ANY units-per-second. The Decoder also checked the defence I handed them -- that the dwell corpus might be emulator-contaminated -- and declined it. Their capture reproduces those boots (publisher 4.263 s, developer 3.457 s, four runs agreeing). They could have waved my numbers away and did not. 🔴 BUT FOLLOWING IT THROUGH FOUND SOMETHING NOBODY HAD SAID: THE PORT HAS NO HOLD. publisher declared 255 units measured 4.270 s animation at 60 = 4.250 s developer declared 210 units measured 3.527 s animation at 60 = 3.500 s The port's screen time IS its animation time; the residual is +0.02 s, i.e. none. The game, by the Decoder's counts, is on screen 219 presents and animates ~128 of them -- about 42 % hold. So if 120 is right, this port makes TWO ERRORS THAT CANCEL: it animates every splash 2x too slow, and it omits the hold entirely, and the two sum to almost exactly the right total screen time. That is why the dwell check passes, and authored/timing.json cited that agreement as proof -- "So the pacing was right all along and nothing changes in the code." Conditional on 120, that sentence is a coincidence. Corrected in place. ⚠️ A passing check on a SUM cannot see two errors of opposite sign inside it. Fourth member of today's family, after the non-inverting latch check, the unguarded buffer assumption, and the segmentation that nearly produced a convenient answer. 🔴 AND 120 EXPLAINS BOTH OPEN PLAY-TEST FINDINGS. 60 EXPLAINS NEITHER. finding 3, "the plate arrives late": at 60 full at 3.933 s at 120 1.967 s finding 4, "the game's fade is MORE PRONOUNCED": at 60 build-in 0.750 s, then the screen leaves at once at 120 build-in 0.375 s, then the screen HOLDS ~1.7 s At 60 the logo drifts in slowly and leaves; at 120 it snaps in and sits, which is what "more pronounced" describes. Finding 4 is explained twice over by one constant -- the fade is 2x slow AND the hold is missing. Every named cause for both findings has died over the past several iterations; 120 is the first hypothesis that accounts for either, and it accounts for both. This is not a measurement and I am not calling it decisive. It is the one thing the port can contribute that no capture can: what a human watching both reported. STILL HOLDING AT 60. Reach is one boot and they are not asking me to lift it. ⚠️ The hold and the constant are COUPLED. At 60 the port must NOT gain a hold -- the animation already fills the screen time and a hold would overshoot by ~40 %. The missing hold is a defect only if 120 is right. When it moves it is TWO changes: the constant, and a hold measured as (screen presents - animation presents), which must NOT be inferred from the total -- the total is exactly the quantity that cannot distinguish the two errors. Not settled: the constant; the clock origin; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
07da4f167f |
port: hold at 60 against a better 120, audit the switch, and name its falsifier first
The Decoder measures 120 units/s with a content-hash experiment carrying the controls the withdrawn version lacked -- a static texture hashing constant (1 change in 403 samples) and movie luma not constant (102 distinct) -- against pre-registered bands the observed 0.5739 falls inside. It is a better experiment than either it replaces. THE PORT HAS NOT MOVED. It is their third position on this number in one day, reach is one boot, and they said themselves that a second independent boot before a timeline is rewritten is the defensible call. Agreed. ⚠️ And 60 is not defended either -- its bracket was withdrawn this morning. Both numbers are undefended. The port keeps the one it ships because switching on a single capture is a worse failure than holding on none. That is the whole reasoning and it is not evidence about the game. ✅ THE AUDIT THEY ASKED FOR COMES OUT CLEAN. "If seconds are baked in anywhere, they all move." No seconds are baked into the timeline: every second this port prints or acts on is computed as units / keyframe_units_per_second at the point of use -- settle_time, exit_time, _overlay_quit_at, the boot log. audio.json's loop_start_s / loop_end_s ARE seconds and correctly do NOT follow the constant; they are positions in an audio file with no keyframe unit in them. So the switch is one number in one file. 🔴 ONE EXCEPTION, AND IT WAS HIDING BEHIND A COMMENT ABOUT NOT DRIFTING. tools/port/verify-dwell read black_hold_units from the authored file "so it cannot drift again" -- and then divided by a literal 60.0. The value could not drift; the conversion could, and would have gone silently wrong the moment the constant moved, which is under active dispute right now. Harmless only because the hold is 0. Fixed to read the rate from the same file it already opens. That is the third time in this corpus a `why` has described a property the code did not have, and the first where the comment and the defect were one line apart. 📌 AND THE FALSIFIER IS PRE-REGISTERED, BEFORE ANY SECOND BOOT, in docs/port/units-per-second-switch-readiness.md. At 120 every declared interval halves: the plate lands at 1.967 s, the publisher splash runs 2.125 s and the developer 1.750 s. Three cold boots measured those splashes at 4.30/4.60/4.37 and 3.51/3.50/3.37. So 120 and the dwell corpus cannot both be right in wall-clock seconds -- the same collision that killed the 35 units/s proposal from the other direction, arriving from the opposite side. Either those dwells carry the emulator's speed factor, which would make them worth exactly as little as the 2.13 s route the Decoder has already declined to lean on, or 120 is wrong. Naming that now is the point of writing it before the boot rather than after. What would move this port: a second independent boot agreeing, AND a statement on whether the cold-boot dwell corpus survives the same speed-factor objection that the 2.13 s route does not. The first without the second leaves a 2x contradiction standing between two numbers the port would then hold at once. Not settled: the constant; the clock origin, which every ratio and count above survives untouched; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; the allowance's grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
b42ff385ed |
port: my 12-unit bracket is withdrawn, and 41 % of my own doc citations did not resolve
Two things, and the first is a refutation of mine that lands.
1. THE 12-UNIT BRACKET IS WITHDRAWN. It excludes nothing.
I kept 60 units/s on the ground that "12 declared units measured at 0.14-0.30 s
gives 40-86 units/s, so 120 is excluded". The Decoder refuted it and I checked
the arithmetic myself:
120 units/s predicts 12 units in 0.100 s -- BELOW the sampler's own 0.125 s
resolution, which the source doc states in its own words ("at a sampling
resolution that cannot do better"). A 0.125 s sampler reports such an interval
as about one sample, ~0.125-0.14 s. So the 0.14 s low end is the INSTRUMENT'S
FLOOR, and 12/0.14 = 85.7 is an upper bound produced by dividing by a floored
duration. It is the value 120 predicts once the sampler is accounted for.
🔴 And the deeper error is mine rather than the arithmetic. I argued the leg
survived because it "never touched a frame count". True, and INSUFFICIENT: every
wall-clock duration off Canary is true/speed_factor, so apparent units/s = true x
speed, and the speed factor is precisely what makes the three routes disagree. I
checked the leg for the WRONG CONTAMINANT. Frame-free is not clock-free, and on
this emulator clock-free is the property that matters.
What survives is the half I did not lead with: the declared 12 units are
independently confirmed as SIX FRAMES by screen-transitions.md's 255/6-per-frame
ramp, with no wall clock in it. That is evidence about units per FRAME -- never in
dispute -- and silent about units per second.
So 60 has NO surviving bracket. It stays because nothing supports 120 either and
moving a shipped timeline on no evidence is worse. That is a default, not a
derivation, and the entry now says so. `kind` is already `authored`.
2. 41 % OF THE REPO PATHS CITED IN MY OWN docs/port/ PROSE DID NOT RESOLVE.
The Decoder observed that everything they hand me links into docs/re/ files that
live only on their branch, so every link they send dangles from here. I turned it
on myself and it was worse than I expected: 37 of 91, in two classes.
19 on their topic branch -- real files, not merged. Not errors, and no one in
this container can fix them; the fix is a merge.
7 resolve NOWHERE: docs/BLOCKED.md, docs/DECISIONS.md, docs/FORMAT.md,
port/manifest.json, port/screens/title/*.json. Left behind by the monorepo
move and the export/ rename. Simply wrong -- a reader following one gets
nothing, and nothing had ever told anyone.
All 7 fixed. audit-kinds checks citations in authored/; nothing checked the
PROSE, which is where this port explains itself.
New: tools/port/check-citations, wired into check-all with its control. It fails
ONLY on the resolve-nowhere class and reports the peer-branch class, because a
check that went red for a state nobody here can change is the shape the display
guard exists to prevent. The --selftest plants a dangling citation and requires it
caught, AND a real one and requires it passed -- both directions, since a scanner
that flagged everything would also "pass" the first.
Not settled: finding 3 has no surviving cause and 60 now has no surviving
derivation either; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual; pgloading_loop5's residual; the
allowance still waits on its grep trigger.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
3df042f10f |
port: the re-opened rest() pair reaches nothing we draw, and 60 units/s is authored now
Two things, and both are about a label being wrong rather than a value. 1. THE rest() PAIR IS MOOT FOR THIS PORT, and that is measured rather than waited on. R1 re-opened both legs, 8 further claims died with the ⟨render-vs-capture⟩ instrument, and ScreenView.settle_time() uses rest.t -- so this port has been sitting on a question with no instrument behind either side. An element reaches the plateau-less fallback exactly when no two consecutive keyframes are identical. Census over all sixteen screens at every nesting depth: FIVE elements, three distinct -- palogo_sqex_eff, palogo_anima_eff, ptlogo_eff3, plus two region twins. And every one of them is transparent where its rest pose is read: publisher_logo t=140 not drawn: palogo_sqex_eff (transparent) developer_logos t=117 not drawn: palogo_anima_eff (transparent) title_jp --pose=rest not drawn: ptlogo_eff3 (transparent) So no rest() rule -- plateau-plus-dwell, `last`, `maxalpha` or `lastall` -- can change any pixel this port draws. That is why the splash rows score 0.01 % against their captures while resting on a heuristic nobody can currently defend: it is not load-bearing there. 🔴 And the brief's "the two splashes are the ONLY screens reaching that fallback" is narrowly refuted -- title_jp reaches it too, via ptlogo_eff3. Stated as a measurement of the CURRENT export: the record-layout fix re-timed keyframes corpus-wide and a plateau is exactly what that could create or destroy, so this does not say the claim was wrong when written. ⚠️ It does NOT rehabilitate rest.t, still wrong for transients like ptlogo_back2eff1 whose rest.t=54 is a two-frame flash's PEAK. That is a plateau case, not a fallback case, and nothing here touches it. 2. keyframe_units_per_second RECLASSIFIED measured -> authored. The value does not move; the label was false. The Decoder withdrew their guest-frame-rate finding the same day they published it, and this file carried `kind: measured` on its strength. Three routes now disagree -- withdrawn movie cadence 60, vblank ~120, title-plate-delay ~56 -- and at most one is right. 60 is kept, and not as a coin toss: the one leg of this file's own reasoning that never touched a frame count still brackets it. The transition quad is declared black for 12 units and the capture measured 0.14-0.30 s, i.e. 40-86 units/s. 60 sits inside; 120 does not; ~56 is 7 % away and inside the same bracket. 🔴 audit-kinds caught my first attempt at this, DANGLING: I cited guest-frame-rate-WITHDRAWN.md, which is on their branch and not in my checkout -- citing a document I cannot read. The check doing exactly its job. The withdrawal is now named in prose and labelled as coming from their message. 📌 Their method note is worth more than the number and is recorded in the file: their pre-registration named three ways the ruler could lie and guarded two; the third occurred, and a PERFECT 1.0000 is precisely what it produces. A clean result on an instrument whose key assumption is unguarded is not confirmation -- the cleanness may be the failure mode's own signature. Same family as this port's non-inverting latch check, which passed for the wrong reason until its control failed. Not settled: finding 3 still has no surviving cause; the ~1.0-1.2 menu residual against the additive-capable reference; pgloading_loop5's own residual; and the allowance still waits on its grep trigger. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
94e44b5ba4 |
port: the additive-capable reference collapses the divergence 6x, measured at the tag
The Decoder taught `ui_layout::blit` the additive blend at formats-pin-2026-09-01b, on the argument this port made: the comparison was structurally incapable, and the refutation keeping additive out was ⟨render-vs-capture⟩ -- that renderer disagreeing with itself while it had a stale keyframe association, no leaf geometry and no rotation. MEASURED WITHOUT PULLING THEIR BRANCH INTO MINE: a detached worktree at the tag, sylpheed-cli built there, verify-screen pointed at it through SYLPHEED_CLI. My branch is untouched and the reference on `main` is unchanged. Pre-registered: the diffs caused by the gap should collapse, and whatever remains is a different cause. main_menu 7.2580 max 105 -> 1.2068 max 28 6.0x main_menu_jp 7.3440 max 108 -> 1.2111 max 31 6.1x extras 6.9757 max 113 -> 1.0229 max 28 6.8x extras_jp 7.0734 max 115 -> 1.0255 max 30 6.9x title 1.0335 max 88 -> 0.5685 max 41 1.8x title_jp 4.4944 max 233 -> 2.8225 max 233 1.6x build_12/15 0.0772 max 60 -> 0.0463 max 17 1.7x build_00/01 0.0676 max 60 -> 0.0366 max 4 DIFFERS -> OK build_00 and build_01 stop differing entirely, over3 3422 -> 0. And the twins agree to a third of a percent: main_menu 1.2068 vs main_menu_jp 1.2111 (0.36 %), extras 1.0229 vs extras_jp 1.0255 (0.25 %). Under the name-keyed map those pairs were 4.1x and 7.8x apart. Nothing was fitted -- they converged once when the PORT took the decoded field and again now that the REFERENCE draws the same blend. The residual is smaller and its causes are the documented ones: title_jp 2.82 is the --pose=rest sparkle handling, title 0.57 the ptloop sweep phase, both untouched by any of this. main_menu/extras and twins sit at ~1.0-1.2 max ~28-31, new and undiagnosed -- additive was the dominant cause, not the only one. And build_12/15 do NOT return to their pre-change 0.0368, so pgloading_loop5 carries a small residual of its own beyond the blend. Recorded, not chased. 🔴 THE ALLOWANCE SHOULD NARROW AND HAS NOT, ON PURPOSE. Its justification is gone, but check-all builds the reference from the WORKSPACE crate and the additive path is at a tag, not on `main`. Narrowing now would turn check-all red against a reference that still cannot draw additive -- a wall of failures meaning one thing, which is the defect the display guard exists to prevent. The trigger is written into the script so it does not rot: when `grep -q additive crates/sylpheed-formats/src/ui_layout.rs` succeeds, drop the export-derived clause and keep the two named legacy rows. The set that should then differ is measured above. H5 confirmed from the other side. And a trap worth carrying: the Decoder nearly reported my H5 claim as a contradiction because `loop5` is not a sprite -- it is an ELEMENT, pgloading_loop5.rat, resolving to sprite pgloading_ring.t32. Any census keyed by sprite name will miss it. Not settled: the ~1.0-1.2 residual on the menus; pgloading_loop5's own residual; finding 3, where the Decoder is taking the clock origin; and the 8 claims R1 has re-opened against ⟨render-vs-capture⟩, including BOTH legs of the rest() pair that this port's settle behaviour rests on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
c01580740e |
port: my pteff10 counter-example failed, H5 closes as additive, and I broke my own allowance
Three things, and the first is the one worth reading. ❌ MY COUNTER-EXAMPLE FAILED. I reported pteff10 as a possible counter-example to the ✅ DECODED blend bit. It is not: the oracle measures it ADDITIVE on main_menu in all three menu sessions, every frame, entry 5 of blend-bit-vs-oracle.txt. My premise was a stale COVERAGE TABLE of theirs, sitting upstream of its own correction. I inferred "their log does not cover this element" from a summary and called it a contradiction with a capture. The lesson is not that their table was stale -- it is that I treated a summary as the log, having spent three iterations insisting that other people quote instruments rather than conclusions. Their explanation made a prediction, so I checked it rather than accepting it: if additive and alpha-over nearly coincide on a dim glow, why did my score move 20 %? Diffing the two renders, where pteff10's blend is the only change: identical 373 588 px (40.5 %) differing > 3 330 794 px (35.9 %) MAX difference 32 levels pixels >= 60: 0 Their explanation holds and my scepticism does not. Nothing moves more than 32/255. What moved the RMSE is AREA. 📌 And that generalises past this row: raw-rmse is AREA-WEIGHTED, so a shallow change over a third of the frame moves it far more than a deep change over a few hundred pixels, and the number alone cannot say which you have. 10.88 -> 13.02 reads like a serious regression and is invisible to an eye. Any verify-capture row that moves should be asked "broad or deep?" first; it costs one histogram. I did NOT take their suggestion to exclude the element from the metric. The reason to exclude -- "the metric cannot distinguish these" -- is now measured to be false; it distinguishes them fine and weights them by area. Excluding would remove the only signal that would fire if the bit were wrong elsewhere. ✅ H5 CLOSES, as a side effect. pgloading_loop5 -- the element I had localised all 951 differing pixels to -- carries blend_additive, and ui_layout.rs has no additive path, so the reference cannot reproduce that draw by construction. build_00/build_01 agreed only because they never draw it; with the decoded field they gained loop1/loop4 additive and now differ too, as predicted. 🟢 The strongest corroboration of the decoded field came unfitted, from the rows I was not looking at. EN/JP twins were 4.1x and 7.8x apart under the name-keyed map and are now 1.1 % and 1.3 % apart (main_menu 7.26 vs 7.34, extras 6.98 vs 7.07). A disc-wide field predicts locale twins render identically; a screen-name map cannot. That prediction was not available to me before the swap. 🔴 AND I BROKE MY OWN ALLOWANCE, silently, one iteration after building it. check-all's verify-screen allowance derived from authored/rendering.json's additive_elements -- the key I deleted last commit -- so it evaluated to EMPTY and would have failed six rows for no reason anyone could read off the output. Caught by going to look, not by the check. A derived allowance is only as durable as the thing it derives from, and I pointed this one at a file I then emptied. It now derives from the EXPORT. ⚠️ That is LOOSER and the cost is stated: 12 of 16 screens qualify and verify-screen goes fully green. Measured after the swap the two sets line up exactly -- all 10 differing screens have a drawn additive element, all 6 agreeing screens have none -- but a screen differing for some OTHER reason would now be excused. 📌 The real fix is not here: verify-screen compares two renderers and one cannot express a blend the disc declares. Giving ui_layout.rs an additive path would make it meaningful again. PROPOSED, not done -- their crate, and their refutation of additive predates the measurement that overturned it. Not settled: finding 3, which now has no surviving named cause at all -- the Decoder is taking the clock origin, on the grounds that every measurement either of us has made is a DIFFERENCE and a difference cannot detect a common offset. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
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
|
7c8e4a863a |
port: adopt the game's 61% stick threshold, and find my verify-screen numbers were llvmpipe-specific
Two things, and both are about a hidden parameter nobody was recording. 1. THE STICK THRESHOLD IS DECODED NOW, and it replaces an authored value. The Decoder measured that the game digitises the left stick to four direction bits at 61 % deflection, so it never sees a velocity. Gamepad.ENTER moves 0.5 -> 0.61. The 0.5 was never a chosen value: it was a FLOOR, because Godot's `ui_*` action deadzone is 0.50 and the latch must not arm below it. Between 0.50 and 0.61 Godot reports a direction the real game does not, and at 0.5 this port stepped there. The mechanism also corroborates the human's latch fix rather than merely agreeing with it: a control that digitises to bits cannot express a rate, so "one step per deflection" is what the hardware layer CAN produce. ⚠️ The 0.11 hysteresis gap stays AUTHORED -- nothing says the game has hysteresis at all. And a human chose 0.5, so this changes feel: revert the one constant if 0.61 reads as needing too much push. 🔴 AND THE CONTROL CAUGHT MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT ASSERTING IT. I added the new device-level row as subject "latch", and `verify-input --control` failed immediately with "a check did not invert -- it is not testing what it claims to test". It was right: removing the latch does not remove the THRESHOLD, the unlatched path tests `>= Gamepad.ENTER` too, so 0.55 counts 0 either way and the row could never invert. It is a NEGATIVE, and its positive control is the 0.70 row on the same shape. Reclassified. That also exposed a smaller thing: ok()'s negative branch HARDCODED "positive control is the stick row", so a second negative would have borrowed someone else's green line. It now takes the control's name, defaulting to the original text so the d-pad row is unchanged. ✅ I never consumed the pad bit table they have just corrected -- checked by grep over port/, authored/ and tools/port/, not remembered. 2. MY verify-screen NUMBERS WERE llvmpipe-SPECIFIC, and the prediction failed. Pre-registered: both renderers blend in encoded 8-bit space, so the diffs should be identical or within 1 level on the GPU. They are not -- every mean rose 3-35 %: title 0.4431 -> 0.5936, main_menu 3.9363 -> 4.1449, extras 6.7422 -> 6.9757, title_jp 2.7715 -> 2.9448, main_menu_jp 0.7885 -> 1.0157, extras_jp 0.6592 -> 0.8906, build_12/15 0.0368 -> 0.0454. But the MAXIMA are unchanged -- 41, 97, 113, 233, 17 identical, 26 -> 27 on one row. That is a rounding population growing, not content moving: two rasterisers round the last bit of a blend differently while the elements that genuinely differ do not move. Survives: the additive diagnosis, because it rests on an ORDERING and the ordering holds (9 elements > 5 > 0); the pgloading_loop5 localisation; the build_00/01 agreement; the derived allowance, same four failing rows. Does not, and is now labelled: the histogram (53 % within 1 level, 16 844 over 40); every absolute mean; and the RMSE-vs-capture pair 3151.96 / 3769.61 -- that ORDERING claim is not re-derived on the GPU and is not claimed until it is. The rule this earns: a renderer comparison carries its RASTERISER as a hidden parameter. Nothing here recorded which one produced a diff, and for months there was only one so it never mattered. Same discipline TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION already demands for capture rate, applied to what rasterises rather than what clocks. Not settled: H1's repeat half; H6's +0x04 exposure; the four red verify-screen rows; whether the port is still nearer the capture than the reference on the GPU. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
ba3f490c67 |
port: P7's gate has an artifact, and the GPU kills my finding-4 candidate outright
Three things this iteration, and the middle one is the human's doing. P7 -- GATE MET, with an artifact. The path had been wired for some time (then_video S00A, skipped_chain, after_video -> title, and S00A.ogv in the export) and NOBODY HAD RUN IT. A milestone is done when its artifact exists, not when the wiring reads correctly. Pre-registered: unskipped, S00A is 93.78 s of media, so it should end on its own at ~94 s and hand off to title. Measured: video ended at 94.13 s -- +0.35 s, 0.4 % -- then -> title, plate raised, script complete at 96.83 s. Both predictions held. docs/port/p7-gate.md. And it genuinely decodes, checked because "ends at the right time" does not prove it: 45 frames in a 2.03 s window, 244 in an 18.91 s one. Scales with the window, sub-linearly, at the software fill ceiling -- those two runs predate the GPU. The counts are upper bounds and the port says so itself. Free corroboration of the fill-rate finding, from a direction it was not designed for: the unskipped run reports main_menu at 60.3 fps for 94 s, because the screen never changes during a movie. Same process, same container, same screen: 60.3 fps with one full-screen video texture on top, 9.7 fps drawing the menu's five additive full-screen quads. ❌ THE FINDING-4 FRAME-RATE CANDIDATE IS DEAD, tested rather than argued away. The human activated a hardware GPU in both containers; Godot takes it with no change on our side (NVIDIA GTX 1070 Ti, Vulkan 1.4.312, Forward+): publisher_logo 17.3-25.0 -> 69.4 fps developer_logos 16.7-22.8 -> 69.1 title 12.7-17.2 -> 61.1 main_menu 9.7 -> 59.6 Pre-registered that 5-7 full-screen textured quads at 720p is trivial for that card and the fade would get its full 45 steps. At 69 fps the 45-unit build-in gets 52 drawn steps and the companion glow's 15-unit rise gets 17 -- MORE frames than declared units, so every declared alpha is drawn and the quantisation is absent rather than reduced. So every candidate for finding 4 is now dead: keyframes vindicated against the vertex stream, companion quads drawn, blend space matching, settled pose at 0.01 %, no post-process pass, and the frame rate drawing every declared step. The port has nothing left that is KNOWN to be wrong about the splashes -- which is a statement about our knowledge, not about the port. The human saw something and nothing we can measure reproduces it. The next play-test is now the highest-value thing on this focus, and the rate line will say 60-something. One figure did not improve: main_menu's worst gap is 117 ms on the GPU against 150 ms on llvmpipe, essentially unchanged while the mean improved 6x. A hitch that survives a 6x fill speed-up is not fill. Likely first-frame cost, STATED AS UNTESTED, recorded rather than chased. check-all now asserts the display before any Godot step. Xvfb does not survive a container restart and LEAVES ITS SOCKET BEHIND, so Godot reports "X11 Display is not available", falls back to Wayland, fails that too, and exits non-zero -- and every Godot-backed step would have gone red for that one reason. Cost me one run before I noticed. Checked with xdpyinfo rather than by looking for the socket, because the stale socket is what makes it confusing. Also recorded from the P7 run, neither chased: Godot reports 4 leaked ObjectDB instances at exit on that path, and the menu bed keeps playing under the movie (already an open ask -- does the menu music duck?). Not settled: the 117 ms menu hitch; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (with the Decoder); the four red verify-screen rows; and what the human actually saw. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
4be90c2805 |
port: the frame rate is llvmpipe, not our draw path -- and my finding-4 candidate is downgraded
Last iteration left "is 9.7 fps llvmpipe or something in our draw path" open after publishing a candidate cause off it. That is not a question to leave open, so this iteration is the control. Pre-registered: if the rasteriser is the limit, a near-empty scene in the same container also runs at 10-25 fps; if our draw path is, it runs far faster, take >100 fps as the discriminator. empty 161.6 fps The engine loop, viewport and present path are not the limit, by 16x over the menu. 🔴 AND MY FIRST CONTROL WAS NOT A CONTROL. Its fill modes drew UNTEXTURED rects while every element the port draws is a texture, so it bounded nothing -- and it showed: the splashes were achieving ~21 Mpx/s against that control's ~50, which read as the port being mysteriously slow and was the control being mysteriously fast. With a matched textured mode: empty 161.6 | fill3 31.5 | tex3 23.9 | fill7 12.7 | tex7 11.2 and every port screen lands inside the bracket, ordered by large-quad count: publisher (1 quad) 17.3-25.0 ~ tex3; developer (1) 16.7-22.8 ~ tex3; title (6) 12.7-17.2 between; main_menu (5) 9.7 ~ tex7's 11.2. The port draws large textured alpha quads on a software rasteriser at exactly the rate a software rasteriser draws them. ⚠️ The control's own spread is 1.75x between runs (fill3 measured 18.0 once and 31.5 once), so the absolute figures are noise-dominated and only the ORDERING and the BRACKET are load-invariant. That is what the conclusion rests on -- TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION §3, prefer the quantities with no phase. 🔴 SO MY OWN CANDIDATE FOR FINDING 4 IS DOWNGRADED, AND THIS SAYS SO PLAINLY. Last iteration called the frame rate "the first candidate for finding 4 that is not already dead". The quantisation argument still holds -- a fade drawn in four steps is not a fade drawn in fifteen -- but it only bites at these rates, and these rates are a property of software rasterisation in this container. Five to seven full-screen quads at 720p is nothing to a GPU. Unless the human ran the port software-rendered, this is not what they saw, and EVERY candidate for finding 4 is now dead or near-dead. Written as a dead end rather than left standing as a lead. Leaving a plausible-sounding cause up after its own control has undercut it is exactly how "close but not right" got explained four different wrong ways. The one thing that would revive it costs the human nothing: the rate line prints on every boot now, so their next run answers it. What the port does NOT need, established rather than assumed: no draw-path optimisation (161.6 fps empty, screens on the fill curve where their quad counts put them), no texture caching (already at load_screen), no max_fps or vsync change (would not raise the rate here, and is a presentation decision not a defect). Not settled: what rate the human's machine manages -- now the only open half of a candidate I have otherwise talked myself out of; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (with the Decoder); the four red verify-screen rows. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
170d255e82 |
port: the port never reported its own frame rate, and the menu draws at 9.7 fps
TEMPORAL-VERIFICATION §1 requires every instrument to state its achieved rate against its requested one. That has been applied to --film (which I fixed for exactly this), to the Decoder's harnesses and to the oracle. It had never once been applied to the thing being shipped. The port had no idea what rate it drew at and no way to say. It matters now because the splashes are the focus and the open complaint is that ours is LESS PRONOUNCED than the game's. A fade drawn in 45 frames and the same fade drawn in 12 are different animations, and nothing here could tell them apart. boot.gd now counts frames per screen and reports at every boot transition, at the end of the boot, and at every menu arrival. `worst gap` sits beside the mean because a hitch is what reads as wrong and a mean hides one by construction. Measured in this container, three boots: publisher_logo 17.3 / 19.6 / 25.0 fps worst gap 100-115 ms developer_logos 16.7 / 21.9 / 22.8 fps worst gap 103-138 ms title 17.2 / 14.2 / 12.7 fps worst gap 150 ms, all three main_menu 9.7 fps worst gap 150 ms 🟡 A LIVE CANDIDATE FOR PLAY-TEST FINDING 4, and the first one that is not dead. The timeline is delta-driven so durations stay correct at any rate; what changes is how many alphas the fade is DRAWN at. At the measured rates the 45-unit build-in gets 12-17 distinct alphas instead of 45, and the pre-blurred companion glow -- the thing that IS the splash's blur -- rises over 15 units and is drawn at FOUR TO SIX steps instead of fifteen. ⚠️ It is a candidate, not a cause: this is llvmpipe under Xvfb and not the human's hardware. The point is that the line now prints on every boot, so the next play-test answers it for free. Every other candidate for finding 4 is already dead -- keyframes vindicated against the vertex stream, companion quads drawn, blend space matching, settled pose at 0.01 % against the capture, no post-process pass to add. ✅ And nothing published is invalidated, which was worth checking rather than assuming: every timing result here comes from `_elapsed` (+= delta) or `time_units` (the same sum scaled), so all are correct at any frame rate. The splash dwells were measured across runs whose rates differed by 2x and agreed to ±0.03 s. Had the timeline been frame-counted, every number in this corpus would have been wrong by a factor that changed between runs -- which is precisely the failure the Decoder found in the emulator's rate and withdrew a finding over. Two defects in the instrument itself, both caught and fixed before it was trusted: - its first version printed "-9223372036854775808 requested". DisplayServer.screen_get_refresh_rate() returns a FLOAT and is -1.0 when the display cannot say, which Xvfb cannot, and %d underflows to INT64_MIN. It now names the cap or says `uncapped`. - it was BOOT-ONLY and said so nowhere -- `--menu` arrives through _menu_arrive, not _advance, so the mode a human spends time in reported nothing. That is the shape this port keeps finding in other people's work, and it lasted one measurement here. Refutation attempt: I checked whether the port re-decodes PNGs per frame, which would have been a real defect. It does not -- _load_textures caches at load_screen. Hypothesis dead, cheaply, and recorded. Not settled: what rate the human's machine manages; whether 9.7 fps on the menu is llvmpipe or something in our draw path; H6's +0x04 exposure; H1 (the Decoder is taking it this iteration). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX |
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
977965e92d |
port: the splash rate is withdrawn, and timing the shipping boot caught a why describing code we do not have
H7 closed: the Decoder withdrew the per-GamePart rate the same day (
|
||
|
Sylpheed port agent
|
94c38cb384 |
port: refuse the splash rate -- a 160-unit hold cannot outlast the 210-unit group containing it
The Decoder proposes a per-screen rate: ~57 units/s for the title, ~35-40 for the splashes, on the ground that a splash at 60 runs 1.5-1.7x too fast. That would be a timeline cause for the human's finding 4, so it matters. THE PORT DID NOT MOVE, and this is why. The 160-unit hold is identifiable: exactly one interval in either splash is 160 units, the DEVELOPER splash's a=255 plateau at t=30..190, inside its declared group t=0..210. So: the 160-unit hold measured 4.514 guest s (1 run) -> 35.4 units/s the 210-unit group AROUND IT measured 3.37/3.50/3.51 s (3 cold boots) -> 60.7 A sub-interval cannot outlast the interval containing it. That is not two methods disagreeing about a rate, it is arithmetic, and one of the two is wrong. Both dwell measurements corroborate ~60 on exactly the two screens now put at 35-39: publisher 255 units in 4.30/4.60/4.37 = 57.7, developer 210 units in 3.37/3.50/3.51 = 60.7, the developer agreeing with its declared value to 1.1 % and two of its runs to 0.3 %. At 35.4 the declared groups would run 5.93 s and 7.20 s -- each splash ~70 % longer than three cold boots measured it. The one escape route is named rather than dismissed: the new figure is in GUEST seconds and the corpus in wall-clock. The known gap between those is Canary at ~28.1 fps against 30, which is 6 % and the wrong direction to close 1.7x. It is their instrument and their clock, so it is asked (H7), not ruled out. ⚠️ The STRUCTURAL claim may still be right -- one rate covering every screen is what is under challenge, and the title's 56.8 does sit ~5 % off the splashes' 58-61. If a per-screen rate is real the port wants the MECHANISM, a field or a GamePart constant, not two authored numbers. That is their next item. Recorded in authored/timing.json so the next iteration does not quietly adopt it, with an explicit instruction not to split the difference: averaging two measurements that cannot both be true is not a third measurement. Also this iteration: H6 -- answered in principle, blocked in practice. They are right that the blend is a decoded disc field (T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02) and that deriving beats transcribing, which would delete an authored entry. But sylpheed-formats does not EXPOSE +0x04 -- Element surfaces kind (+40), parent (+32), pivot, keyframes, focus_link -- and sylpheed-export consumes formats by git TAG, not workspace path, so I cannot reach the parser. Asked: surface the word and tag it. 🔴 And a negative worth having, since it is the obvious thing to try: kind_raw in this export is NOT that field. Its bit 0x2 against the additive map over four screens is ANTI-correlated -- 0 of 14 mapped elements have it set and 9 unmapped ones do. Anyone reaching for `kind_raw & 2` gets the additive set exactly inverted. H5 -- closed. My shared-element hypothesis is refuted: build_12 and build_15 have identical declaration bodies, so identical statistics are one fact. The pgloading_loop5 localisation stands and is the better answer. ✅ And the good news, recorded where the splash work lives: "the declared keyframe timeline reproduces the captured splash" settles in favour of the timeline -- 50 captured alphas, worst error one level in 255, no renderer in the chain. The port's splash keyframes were never the defect. Which leaves the RATE as the remaining candidate for what the human saw, and the rate is what this commit declines to change. Not settled: which of the two splash measurements survives; where a per-screen rate would come from; the +0x04 exposure; H1 (key repeat). 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 |