1f175dd98c
The two sweeps are batched into ONE additive indices=8 draw, two quads, and my parser took the first v: match per line and discarded the rest. Every analysis saw quad A and never quad B. No new capture was needed -- the same logs units 5 and 6 used already contained it. Both strips measured: opposite directions matching the declared -639->1521 and 1721->-839, and a size ratio of 1.301 against the declared sy ratio 800/600 = 1.333. Unit 5 recorded that the PORT's renderer draws pteff03a and treated that as the port being wrong. The port was right. Third instance of this class in the corpus (palogo_anima and the six-quad dump are the others): a truncating reader yields a clean, complete-looking negative. Reading one raw draw line in full would have caught it -- indices=8 was printed on every line and says two quads outright. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
3.5 KiB
F6 unit 5 — pteff03a is never drawn: the game shows ONE sweep, not two
🔴 REFUTED 2026-09-02 by
f6-unit11-pteff03a-IS-drawn.md.pteff03ais drawn. It is batched withpteff03into one additiveindices=8draw, and the parser behind this page read only the first vertex of each draw line. The negative below is an artefact of the reader.
Status: ✅ measured ⟨capture⟩ ×1. 2026-09-02.
Question: does pteff03a appear anywhere in the capture?
Look at: any quad travelling right-to-left at the larger scale. Pass = found;
fail = absent throughout.
Not covered: why the disc declares it if it is absent; other screens.
The measurement
Every quad taller than 1.2 NDC in the whole capture — frames 1…2499, the title's build-in and settle:
h=3.15 n=1754 frames 746..2499 x drift +2.19 LEFT->RIGHT <- pteff03
h=2.00 n= 54 frames 729.. 782 x drift 0.00 static <- not a sweep
quads in pteff03a's expected height band (>3.4): NONE
pteff03a declares 800 % scale against pteff03's 600 %, so its AABB is
≈ 1303 px ≈ 3.62 NDC, and it travels right-to-left. There is no quad of
that height anywhere, and only one travelling quad in the capture at all.
The game draws one sweep during the title. The second is declared and not submitted.
📌 Not a windowing artefact. ptloop02's leaf reaches α = 128 at its t = 150;
at the leaf rate measured in unit 3 that is ≈ 324 frames after its start, well
inside the 1 754 frames captured. If it shared pteff03's clock it had ample room
to appear.
What it hands to the port
Their renderer draws pteff03a — confirmed on their side at three instants.
An extra light streak the game never shows, appearing partway through the
build-in, looks exactly like "the sweep starts too early." That is a better
candidate for the human's report than any clock offset, and it does not depend on
unit 2's unresolved alpha question at all.
⚠️ One capture, one boot, one window. Absence here is strong — the scan was over every tall quad in the whole stream, not a filtered subset — but it is still absence in one observation. The five-second human check the port is asking for (one streak or two?) would settle it faster than another capture, and I would wait for that before anyone deletes an element.
🔴 The disc declares it, so the question moves to my side
GP_TITLE build 4 declares ptloop02.rat as element 12, beside ptloop01.rat as
element 11 — identical pivots, identical keyframe times. Why the game submits one
and not the other is not answered here. Candidates, none tested: its leaf alpha
starts at 0 where pteff03's starts at 255, so a zero-alpha skip would suppress
its first frames but not the whole run; or a focus/variant link means only one of
the pair is ever active.
Refutation attempt
Target: the port's refutation of my by-size identification — "both sweep sprites are byte-identical in size, so size cannot separate them".
Result: they refuted it themselves first, and correctly. The two sprites are 399×180, but the two leaves declare different scales, so the drawn quads differ in height by a third. Size separates them fine. Recorded because it is the second time in this exchange that a challenge was right to be raised and wrong in its stated reason — and both times the check still found something real. The value was in asking, not in the diagnosis.