Last iteration I claimed the splash's measured_paint_order [0,2,4,6,1,3,5]
records, between its glow and logo halves, the temporal order they were
seen in rather than depth -- because the halves never share a frame.
The no-overlap measurement is right (glows f94-115, logos f116-211). The
inference is wrong, on two independent grounds:
* Wrong source. That vector is not a read of the draw capture. It is a
read of the live screen object's CHILD ARRAY -- ui-screen-runtime.md
records it literally as "paint order (child slots)". A child list has
a definite order whether or not its children are ever drawn together,
so co-occurrence does not bear on it. The capture was the CHECK.
* The order is in the file anyway. paint_order_audit on GP_TITLE entry
11: derived == measured, 0 inverted pairs, 0 same-layer-key ties. The
glows and logos carry distinct T8aD keys (0xa100 < 0xa110), so the
file orders the halves statically, no capture involved.
I asked the question that started this iteration -- do the title and menu
orders have the same problem -- and the answer is that none of the three
does, for the same reason.
What survives is narrower and now recorded with numbers: how much of each
order its capture actually cross-checks. The title capture is stable (8
draws / 12 quads / 5 textures, identical in all five captured frames
across two logs) and confirms 7 of 24 positions; the menu capture is not
(texture 0x11C30000 present in frame 0, gone by frame 3); the splash
capture cannot cross-check its middle at all.
A counting trap worth the tool: count QUADS, not draws. The menu's draw 9
is indices=24 -- six quads batched from one texture. Counting draws reads
9 where 16 are on screen, and an earlier pass of this analysis briefly
"found" three quads for six declarations that way and concluded elements
were missing. They were batched.
METHOD: check what a "measured" value was measured FROM before reasoning
about its limits. The co-occurrence rule is real, and it is specific to
orders read from draw captures.
04a3ae1389