The Decoder closed it by ADDING OBSERVABLES, not by tuning. The vertex buffer
carries positions and colours at the same instant, so all four quantities must
agree on one t: quad A x solves to 357.88 and quad B x to 357.58, both +/-0.12
units, against 355.75 +/-1.54 and 354.09 +/-1.89 from the alphas. Alpha moves
only 0.27-0.33 levels per unit, so one byte of quantisation is worth 1.5-1.9
units -- 6-8 px of sweep at 4 px/unit. That is the whole of the 11.5 px. At
t=357.7 the centres land within 0.70 px and both alphas inside one level.
THE LESSON IS THE EARLIER ONE INVERTED AND IT IS THE HALF WORTH KEEPING.
Checking a wrong rule against alpha made it look confirmed; here the same
insensitivity MANUFACTURED a residual that did not exist. An insensitive quantity
does not merely fail to falsify -- it invents error. Solve on the fastest-moving
field, check the slow one, never the reverse. I was already looking for a pivot
rule to explain 11.5 px when they wrote; there was nothing to find.
REFUTATION ATTEMPT, survived with a nuance: they state the leaf pivot is (200,90)
on a 399x180 sprite, "the pivot is the centre, so rotation displaces it by
nothing". Checked against my export -- pivot [200,90], sprite 399x180, true
centre 199.5,90. It survives, but the sprite is ODD-WIDTH so the pivot is the
centre to within half a pixel rather than exactly. No consequence against their
0.70 px agreement; worth stating because "displaces it by nothing" is the kind of
sentence that later gets leaned on for a sub-pixel claim.
verify-capture now poses the title at t=357.7 rather than 355: RMSE 21.07 ->
20.92, differing 1.82% -> 1.81%. Marginal, and it is the right pose for a stated
reason rather than a better number.
AND ptlogo_eff2 IS WITHHELD FOR A BETTER REASON THAN MINE. I had it on caution
about untested generalisation; the Decoder points out it is on title_jp and
MISSION section 7 scopes out "localisation beyond English", so it is not a
question this port has to answer and the parked Japanese capture does not need
reviving for it. authored/rendering.json now gives scope first and undecidability
second. Widening scope to close a residual would have been the wrong trade.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
16ab24480d