7626f9e646
The two adjacent pairs with identical element sets split. 0/1 are the same 59 810 bytes stored twice -- a duplicate, not a language pair. 2/3, the DIFFICULTY build, differ in size and in 2.77 % of bytes from offset 0x1BB while sharing every element name, which is what a language pair looks like. Control: entries 10/11, known to be two different dialogs, differ in 54.90 % of the common prefix, so the comparator separates unrelated dialogs. Supported, not proven, with the untested step named: I have not captured DIFFICULTY in ja. That the two are ENGLISH and JAPANESE rests on the disc's convention, not on a capture of this screen. This partially restores a claim I withdrew, at lower strength than the original phrasing. Also records a refutation attempt on the port's BGM_103 exclusion: it survives and is tighter than they stated -- of 32 census rows, exactly one bank carries EITHER wave size, not merely both. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
38 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
38 lines
2.0 KiB
Plaintext
# Are GP_DIALOG entries 0/1 and 2/3 language pairs or duplicates? 2026-08-31.
|
|
# ✅ ANSWERED, and the two cases SPLIT.
|
|
#
|
|
# They are the only two adjacent pairs in GP_DIALOG with identical element sets;
|
|
# every other adjacent pair is two unrelated dialogs
|
|
# (difficulty-is-a-dialog.txt). Identical element NAMES are equally consistent
|
|
# with a language pair and with a byte-for-byte duplicate, so it was left
|
|
# untested. The bytes decide it.
|
|
#
|
|
# ✅ CONTROL: entries 10/11 are known to be two DIFFERENT dialogs (stage 10 vs
|
|
# stage 02). They differ in 54.90 % of the common prefix and in size. A
|
|
# comparator that cannot separate two unrelated dialogs cannot judge two similar
|
|
# ones -- this one can.
|
|
#
|
|
# entries 10/11 sizes 7 072 448 / 6 788 820 54.90 % of bytes differ
|
|
# entries 0/1 sizes 59 810 / 59 810 0.00 % -- BYTE-IDENTICAL
|
|
# entries 2/3 sizes 8 136 936 / 8 124 856 2.77 % differ, first at 0x1BB
|
|
#
|
|
# ✅ ENTRIES 0/1 ARE A DUPLICATE. Same size, zero differing bytes. Not a language
|
|
# pair -- the same 59 810 bytes stored twice.
|
|
#
|
|
# 🟡 ENTRIES 2/3 -- THE DIFFICULTY BUILD -- ARE NOT. Different sizes, 2.77 % of
|
|
# bytes differing from offset 0x1BB, while sharing EVERY element name. That is
|
|
# what a language pair looks like: one layout, one element set, and a small
|
|
# fraction of the payload differing where the glyphs live.
|
|
#
|
|
# ⚠️ SUPPORTED, NOT PROVEN, and the untested step is nameable: I have not
|
|
# captured DIFFICULTY in `ja`. What is established is "two builds, same element
|
|
# names, ~97.2 % identical bytes"; that they are ENGLISH and JAPANESE rests on the
|
|
# disc's pattern of shipping screens twice per language, not on a capture of this
|
|
# screen.
|
|
#
|
|
# 📌 This partially restores a claim I withdrew. I called 2/3 "an EN/JP pair" as a
|
|
# bare assertion, and withdrew it when sylpheed-port showed adjacent GP_DIALOG
|
|
# entries are generally unrelated. The withdrawal was right -- I had no evidence
|
|
# then. This is the evidence, and it is weaker than the original phrasing: a pair
|
|
# by structure, a LANGUAGE pair by inference from a disc-wide convention.
|