0a9bf4e16a
check-all's four remaining red rows. What I established, and two hypotheses that died on the way -- the second is the one worth reading. ✅ build_12 / build_15 are ONE ELEMENT. All 951 differing pixels lie inside pgloading_loop5 (pgloading_ring.png, 333x276 at [1,444]) and the diff's own bbox x 69..301 y 478..710 sits entirely within it. That also answers, with no rule at all, why build_00 and build_01 AGREE: the port's own draw log says they draw 7 elements to build_12's 10, and pgloading_loop5 is one of the three they never draw. The loading screens that agree are the ones that never draw the element the disagreement is in. 🔴 REFUTED, and it looked strong. ui_layout.rs:86 states in its own words that "rotation_deg is decoded but NOT rendered", and the port does render it. A census over all sixteen exported screens gave: every screen with a non-zero rest rotation DIFFERS, every screen without agrees -- 6 of 6 both ways, including both legacy rows. Widening it to any rotating element (rest rotation OR a two-keyframe 360 spinner at any depth) breaks it: build_00 and build_01 carry two spinners each, the port draws both, and they agree with the reference. A rule that holds on 14 of 16 and fails on the two cases nobody had looked at is a rule fitted to the rows it was built from. Recorded rather than deleted, because the ui_layout.rs:86 comment is exactly what the next reader will find. 🟡 main_menu_jp / extras_jp carry the same sweep leaves -- ptloop01/pteff03 at rot 30, ptloop02/pteff03a at rot -45 -- whose phase residual is the reason already named for `title`, and their means (0.79, 0.66) sit with title's 0.44 rather than their EN twins' 3.94 and 6.74. Consistent with, not established: nobody has isolated those leaves on those screens. 🔴 And an asymmetry this exposed, now DECLARED rather than left silent. main_menu_jp contains exactly the six elements main_menu marks additive, and extras_jp all nine of extras'. The map is keyed by screen name and the Decoder's RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log was taken on the ENGLISH screens, so the port draws them additive on EN and alpha-over on JP -- asserting by omission that the JP build blends differently, which is the LESS likely possibility. Both options assert something unmeasured; only one of them was visible. The map is NOT extended (that would extrapolate a measurement onto a build nobody drove to) and the claim is instead written into authored/rendering.json's additive_elements_why, plus a low-priority ask H6 that says out loud it may not be worth a boot -- MISSION §7 puts JP out of scope and it costs two rows. check-all stays red on the same four. Nothing was excused. Not settled: why the two renderers disagree on pgloading_loop5 specifically; the JP blend question; H1 (key repeat); whether the splashes tick at the title's rate. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
Authored decisions
Everything here is a decision we made, not something the disc said. It is
hand-written, committed, and survives a re-export — unlike export/, which is
regenerated wholesale and must never be hand-edited.
Every entry carries a why. When the RE agent decodes the real answer, delete
the entry and let the exporter emit it; that deletion is the measure of
progress.
See docs/FORMAT.md for the schemas and docs/BLOCKED.md for which HANDOFF
question each placeholder is standing in for.