Play-test finding 4, answered as a mechanism and from the disc, so it
generalises instead of describing one boot.
ui-splash-draw-pass.md excluded a post-process from GPU state and closed
with "that softness is in the texture or in which quads are drawn, not in
a pass", leaving the two unseparated. It is both, and they are one fact:
each logo ships a second texture that IS the blur -- the same artwork
outset by exactly 10 px per side, concentric to <=1.5 px, drawn as its
own alpha-over quad.
Three results, each with its control:
* The capture's eight anonymous quads are NAMED from the disc. Predicting
each NDC rect from declared position + decoded sprite size matches all
eight bijectively; every match <=0.0061, every runner-up >=0.0272, a
4.5-8.9x margin. That margin is the control -- eight similar boxes
would match anything.
* REFUTES splash-quad-timeline.txt's "the same three rects scaled
slightly larger" (my own earlier wording). The x and y scale factors
differ by up to 0.28; a uniform scale cannot do that, a fixed 10-px
border can. The conclusion it supported (draw all six quads) stands;
the model was wrong, and the wrong model tells a port to scale a
sprite.
* The T8aD blend bit tested OUT of sample on entries 10/11, which were
not in its 35-row fit and are the screens under complaint.
Pre-registered additive=false for all eight against 0 additive draws in
1048; held 8/8, with the control still reporting 9 additive on entry 6.
Also resolves a REFUTED.md 🟡 <our-reader> in the reader's favour: the
prediction is ours and the target is the oracle, so the agreement is
evidence about the reader rather than a claim resting on it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
1cd5b8b1cb