sylpheed-port found the fifth member of our error family on their own side: their
"visible" test counted any element with alpha > 0, which includes palogo_eff0.
Verified from the disc rather than accepted --
entry 10 [0] palogo_eff0.prm 1 kf t=0 fade=0xff000000 scale=100x100 pos=(0,0)
entry 11 same
Alpha 255 over RGB 000000: full-screen opaque black, drawn from t=0 and showing
nothing. So "any element drawn" reports these screens visible from t=0 while the
frame is black -- "visible" read as "drawn".
Worth having on its own: this verifies from the disc the premise behind
`screen render --black`, which its own help states as "what the game composites
over on a screen carrying its own background". On the splash builds that
background is DECLARED, not assumed.
METHOD gains their amendment, which is the sharpest formulation either of us
reached this week: all five instances are a failure of a NOUN, not of a number.
Extent, bounding box, duration, span, visible. The number was always correct FOR
SOMETHING; what went missing was which thing. Every other check in that file
tests whether a number is right, and not one tests whether it is a number of the
thing you think.
Also teaches fade_quads.py to address a PAK ENTRY directly (`e10`) rather than
only a build ordinal. The splashes are entries 10/11 and are not screen builds,
so no ordinal addresses them -- and writing `e10` states which index space is
meant, which is the standing lesson of build-ordinal-vs-entry.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
18f3c5d3dd