REFUTED.md kills this claim: 'T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02 selects an additive blend ->
mine, and refuted. Blending those sprites additively worsens every measure
against the capture.' That refutation rests entirely on our renderer, which the
corpus's own rule calls a hypothesis under test. The blend is now measured off
the GPU, so the claim can be tested against the oracle.
35 elements over three screens, every label an RB_BLENDCONTROL0 value read from
the command stream: 16 bit-set and additive, 19 bit-clear and alpha-over, zero
false positives, zero false negatives.
The control that makes it a decode rather than a coincidence: of every bit of
the first 12 header words, EXACTLY ONE separates those 35 elements without
error. Nothing ties with it. A perfect partition on a small sample is worthless
if half the header partitions equally well, which is the mistake +0x08 = 0x8050
was.
And the pair no confound survives: ptbtn00 = 0x0110, ptbtn00f = 0x0112 -- the
PRESS (A) plate and its own highlight, same screen, differing in exactly this
bit, drawn alpha-over and additive respectively.
Committed alongside is a PREDICTION for GP_OPTIONS, written before the capture
that tests it: a different archive, a different element set, and a MIXED
prediction -- po_menu_eff01/02/03 additive, 592 elements alpha-over. Falsified
if those three draw alpha-over or anything else draws additive. The developer
splash was considered first and rejected as a test: both its elements predict
alpha-over, so it can fail but cannot discriminate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
088df913b2