a923954a1f
Answers the port s question, which they refused to guess at: they emit both a parent record and its nested leaf, each with an alpha ramp over a different span, and would not draw the leaf without the composition rule. The per-draw capture records vertex colours, and on the title s ptloop draw they are C3FFFFFF and B6FFFFFF -- alpha 195 and 182, not 255 -- so the composed alpha is observable. Fitting ONLY the two alphas against the two leaf ramps gives one consistent time, t = 355, where leaf A is 194.8 against an observed 195 and leaf B is 182.2 against 182. The parent has expired there: it returns to 0 at t=250 and a group holds at its last keyframe. So leaf times parent over 255 predicts zero for both quads and the sweeps would be invisible. They are drawn. The position check was predicted rather than fitted: nothing about x entered the fit, and the same t=355 places the quad centres at 981 and 478 against 992.0 and 467.2 measured off the capture -- within about 11 px on 400-px quads travelling 1560 and 1950 px. Four quantities from two differently-shaped ramps agree on one time. The rule: a leaf carrying geometry animates on its own timeline and the parent s alpha does not gate it. For these records the parent is a container with no sprite. Reach stated: one draw, one capture, one element pair, and specifically the case where the parent carries no geometry. The opposite case is already recorded -- for a button a base record s leaf duplicates the parent and the parent wins -- so the discriminator is which record carries the geometry, not a fixed precedence. And because every observation here has parent alpha 0, "the leaf wins" is not separated from "the parent is ignored because it draws nothing"; a capture during t=100 to 238 would separate them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QsEPXWVaEpyfudtR6re1Pd
3.1 KiB
✅ A nested .rat leaf animates on its OWN timeline — the parent's alpha does not multiply in
Status: ✅ DECODED, against a GPU draw capture rather than our renderer. Answers the port's question: it emits both a parent record and its nested leaf, each with its own alpha ramp over a different span, and would not draw the leaf without knowing the composition rule.
The question
For the title's light sweeps, parent and leaf disagree about everything:
ptloop01 parent |
its leaf pteff03.t32 |
|
|---|---|---|
| alpha | 0 → 255 over t=70…100, held to 238, → 0 at 250 | 255 → 128 at t=150 → 255 at 540 |
| scale | (100, 100) | (100, 600) |
| rotation | 0 | +30° |
| x | fixed 441 | −639 → −39 → 1521 |
ptloop02's leaf pteff03a.t32 is the mirror: (100, 800), −45°, x
sweeping 1721 → 1111 → −839, alpha 0 → 128 → 255.
The oracle
The per-draw capture records vertex colours, and on the title's ptloop draw
(draw 2) they are C3FFFFFF and B6FFFFFF — alpha 195 and 182, not 255. So
the composed alpha the game actually submitted is observable.
The measurement
Fitting only the two alphas to the two leaf ramps gives a single consistent time, t = 355:
| leaf value at t=355 | observed | |
|---|---|---|
| quad A alpha | 194.8 | 195 |
| quad B alpha | 182.2 | 182 |
| parent alpha (both) | 0 | — |
🔴 Multiplying the ramps is refuted. The parent has expired by t=355 (it
returns to 0 at t=250 and a group holds at its last keyframe), so
leaf × parent / 255 predicts 0 for both quads — the sweeps would be
invisible. They are drawn, at 195 and 182.
✅ And the position check was PREDICTED, not fitted. Nothing about x entered the fit; the same t=355 then places the quads from the leaves' own sweeps:
| from the leaf at t=355 | measured off the capture | |
|---|---|---|
| quad A centre x | 981 | 992.0 |
| quad B centre x | 478 | 467.2 |
Within ~11 px, on 400-px-wide quads travelling 1 560 and 1 950 px. Four quantities — two alphas and two positions, from two differently-shaped ramps — all agree on one time.
The rule
A leaf carrying geometry animates on its own timeline. The parent's alpha does not gate it. For these records the parent is a container: it has no sprite, and its keyframes describe nothing that is drawn.
⚠️ Reach, and it is not a universal rule about leaves. This is one draw, one
capture, one element pair, and it is specifically the case where the parent
carries no geometry. The opposite case is already recorded: for a button, a
base record's leaf duplicates the parent and the parent wins
(ui-button-focus-record.md). So the discriminator
is which record actually carries the geometry, not a fixed precedence.
❔ What is not established: whether the parent alpha would multiply in during a window where it is non-zero. Every observation here has parent = 0, so "the leaf wins" and "the parent is ignored because it has nothing to draw" are not separated. A capture during t=100…238 would separate them.