0048e42b7d
They found the aside mechanism in their own corpus: ui-composable-bundles.md said a .prm element 'has no sprite and is skipped as everywhere else' -- true of our compositor, false of the game. That element is palogo_eff0.prm, which their own ui-forced-backdrop.md decodes as the full-screen opaque black backdrop, forced first, opaque at 211 instants. Checked rather than assumed: the wrong sentence never reached this port. palogo_eff0.prm is exported with no sprite, and ScreenView._draw_quad draws a filled rect when the texture is null, so untextured primitives are painted rather than skipped. The splashes' RMSE of 2.17 and 3.05 against real captures is the corroboration -- skipping the backdrop would not survive that comparison. Their technique was to grep for generalising phrases rather than for claims: the tell is in the aside, because generalising is what turns a statement about our tooling into a statement about the disc. Ten candidates, one real. Run here: nine candidates, all 'was always' or 'has always', temporal and about my own code's history. Zero instances of their pattern. The reason is an asymmetry rather than a better record. Their pages describe the disc, so an aside about our tooling contaminates a disc claim. Mine describe the port, where an aside about the port is about the port, true by construction. My exposure is the mirror: a casual claim about the GAME beside a checked claim about the port. Swept for that instead -- 5 candidates, 0 real. Three are artefacts of a narrow window with the citation elsewhere in the same why, and two are cautions against the very claim. Reported as candidates-judged rather than as a count, since an audit that invents defects is worse than none and a 5-of-5 false-positive rate left as a number is exactly that. What neither sweep can do is find the aside that is correctly about my own domain and still wrong. Both techniques key on a domain crossing; a false claim about the port, in a port document, has no tell. And the incentive they named, recorded plainly: 37 of the 63 remain unsupported rather than refuted, and neither agent has any reason to go back and check them now that the interesting half is settled. The bound is recorded and the reason it will stay unresolved is not difficulty -- it is that nothing rewards closing it. Worth writing at the moment of noticing, because the next reader will find a carefully-bounded claim and no way to tell whether the bound was respected or merely convenient. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
Sylpheed
A clean-room reverse engineering and port project for Project Sylpheed: Arc of Deception (Xbox 360, 2007).
Three things live here, in one repository so that a change spanning them lands as one commit:
| The decoders | crates/sylpheed-formats — the disc's formats, read and verified disc-wide |
| The port | port/ — a Godot 4 project, plus crates/sylpheed-export which converts a disc into the open asset tree it reads |
| The corpus | docs/re/ — what has been reverse engineered, with its evidence, its retractions and its dead ends |
You need your own copy of the game. No game content is in this repository and none ever will be. The exporter reads the disc you supply.
The oracle is the real game
sylpheed-cliand the Explorer are tools for verifying our decoding. They are hypotheses under test and they have been wrong. When something must be checked against the truth, the truth is the game running in Xenia Canary, captured — not any renderer of ours.
This is stated first because getting it backwards is the most expensive mistake this project has made.
Layout
crates/
sylpheed-formats/ the decoders. Disc-wide verified; the corpus is its spec
sylpheed-cli/ headless tools -- render a screen, dump a table, probe audio
sylpheed-viewer/ the Explorer: a human's window onto the disc. STATIC data only
sylpheed-export/ disc -> the open, moddable asset tree
port/ the Godot 4 project. Reads open formats ONLY
authored/ decisions that are NOT on the disc, each with its reason
data/
base/ generated by the exporter. Gitignored, never hand-edited
mods/ drop-in overrides. Yours
docs/
re/ the corpus: findings, refutations, method traps
game/ how the game is navigated -- menus, modals, flight
port/ the port's mission, its handoff contract, modding rules
-- and RUNNING.md, which is how you actually start it
agents/ how the agent team works together
tools/ capture harnesses, probes, the share tool
exchange/ transient inter-agent files. NOT in git
docker/ the agent containers
Where to start
docs/re/INDEX.md— what is decodeddocs/re/REFUTED.md— what has been tested and dieddocs/re/METHOD.md— traps this project has already paid fordocs/game/navigation.md— how the game is navigateddocs/port/MODDING.md— why the asset tree looks the way it does
Xenia Canary is a separate repository: it is a fork tracking upstream, and it carries our instrumentation.
Conventions
Confidence is per claim, never per document: ✅ CONFIRMED · 🟡 PROBABLE ·
❔ HYPOTHESIS · ❌ REFUTED. A withdrawn result is kept with its reasoning
rather than deleted — that is why the numbers here can be trusted.