Files
Sylpheed/docs/re
Sylpheed RE agent 08352d09ac re: add a hunting pilot; withdraw the "10 of 116 records are dynamic" result
The user asked for an actively hunting pilot, since a player who kills nothing
cannot trigger an event-gated wave and both previous runs used the survival
pilot.

pilot.py gains SYLPH_HUNT=1. The substantive change is which contacts ENGAGE may
shoot: it previously skipped every "hard" target -- "turrets and hulls are not
the objective" -- and stood off 2500 units from turrets, on the assumption that
an e007 Turret is an AA mount on a capital ship. It is a craft, one of the main
enemy types of the first six missions, and at 100 HP the cheapest kill on the
field. Under SYLPH_HUNT it is a target and the keep-out drops to 600. The run
confirms the pilot engages: steady ENGAGE, fire=1, committed to an
e010_ADAN_Attacker_S at ~2.2 km, hull and escorted asset untouched over 160 s.

Withdrawn: "only 10 of 116 records ever changed a byte in 170 s". This run
measured 41-56 records changing in every 10 s tick. The old figure does not
reproduce.

I cannot say why, because I changed two variables at once -- the record bound
(fixed 0x200 to bounded-by-next-record) and the pilot (survival to hunting).
Either explains it. That is a design error, and the honest outcome is a
retraction without a replacement explanation rather than a story that fits.
The conclusion it had supported is unaffected: the roster identity now rests on
the exact 10-of-10 unit-composition match measured independently.

Still open, and explicitly not concluded: the pilot's own entity scan shows ADAN
drifting 147 -> 129 -> 142, and the late rise has the shape of an arrival, but
the sample-to-sample swing is +/-10, the same size as the effect. AGENT.md warns
that polling faster than the guest updates manufactures a curve out of noise, so
no wave conclusion is drawn. The run probably did not kill anything either
(fc=0, asset at 100%), so it does not test the event-gated model. A stable
per-record liveness field and a working kill counter are both needed first;
REMAINING OB at 0xbdb59668 still does not read as a counter.
2026-08-24 12:45:43 +00:00
..

Reverse-engineering knowledge base

This directory is the spec-side of the clean-room: it records what the original Project Sylpheed binary does (behaviour) and how its data is laid out, so that the Rust port can be implemented from these specs without re-deriving anything and without ever copying original code.

It exists to answer one question fast: "do we already know how X works, and how sure are we?"


The one rule that matters

Never document a claim more confidently than the evidence supports, and never paste original code here.

A wrong-but-confident note is worse than no note: someone builds on it and the bug hides for weeks. Every entry therefore carries an explicit confidence and its evidence. This mirrors the project method — measure the oracle, never infer; refute before believing.

Clean-room firewall

  • Allowed: behaviour descriptions, field offsets/types, formulas, state machines, observed input→output pairs, and references to the original by address (sub_821B68C0) or to xenia-rs/sylpheed.db.
  • Forbidden here and in crates/: pasted decompiled C/C++ or verbatim disassembled function bodies presented as the thing to reimplement. Cite the address; describe the behaviour in your own words. Disassembly is a tool for understanding, not a source to copy.

Confidence levels

Level Meaning Bar to reach it
CONFIRMED Behaviour verified against ground truth. ≥2 independent observations or one observation cross-checked against an oracle (canary framebuffer, a known-correct value, a second code path).
PROBABLE Strong single-source inference. One clean observation, or an unambiguous static read of the disassembly.
HYPOTHESIS Educated guess, not yet tested. Anything else. Must say what would confirm/refute it.

Promotion requires new evidence, not re-reading the old evidence. A HYPOTHESIS that "looks right again" is still a HYPOTHESIS. Only an independent check promotes it. If evidence later contradicts an entry, demote it and record the contradiction — do not silently edit the conclusion.


When to document

  • Right after a function/structure crosses from HYPOTHESIS to at least PROBABLE — before moving to the next code path, so the knowledge isn't lost or re-derived.
  • Whenever confidence changes (up or down) — append to the Evidence log, don't overwrite.
  • Not while it's still a pure guess with no evidence — a one-liner in the relevant backlog/plan is enough until there's something to stand on.

What to document

  • Functions/code pathsdocs/re/functions/<name>.md (one file per function or tight cluster).
  • Data structures / formatsdocs/re/structures/<name>.md.
  • Keep the index in INDEX.md (one line each: name · confidence · one-line summary).

Use the templates: _TEMPLATE.function.md, _TEMPLATE.structure.md.


How we find and confirm code paths (the toolchain)

Everything joins on the guest virtual address (PC) — code addresses are fixed by the XEX load, identical across our emulator and canary.

  • Static (cheap, try first): xenia-rs/sylpheed.db (DuckDB: 25 481 functions, xrefs, strings, vtables, imports). Query with xenia-rs/zq.pyzq.py grep <str>, zq.py xref <addr>, zq.py dis <lo> <hi>, zq.py fn <pc>. Entry points are usually a string (zq.py grep MSG_DEMO) or an import (movie/XMA API) xref'd back to the loader.
  • Dynamic (when static is ambiguous): run xenia-rs with its probe suite — --pc-probe / --audit-pc-probe-hex (fires at block entry), --mem-watch (mid-block reads/writes of a VA), --lr-trace (call/return chains), --trace-instructions, --dump-addr (read guest memory). These already exist; prefer them over hacking canary.
  • Oracle (correctness ground truth): canary — the Wine cross-build xenia-canary/build-cross/bin/Windows/Debug/xenia_canary.exe (the native Linux ELF crashes / does not run — do not use it). This is the only emulator that reaches the in-game menu; our xenia-rs never got past the intro video. Use canary to observe output (capture its framebuffer for texture colours), not usually to instrument code — though its build-cross toolchain does compile, so small C++ probes + rebuild are possible when needed. Run muted, one emulator process at a time, point it at the real ISO (not the symlink).

⚠️ VA-equality caveat: join code by PC (fixed), but never assume a data VA holds the same bytes across emulators — allocators differ. Compare data by content/layout.