21645dfe6f
Back to the port, and the finding came from reading data rather than a tool. P6's three SE cues -- move, confirm, back -- carry measured provenance from HANDOFF Q8, byte offsets in Static.slb and careful why text. None of them had a kind field, so audit-kinds, the audit that exists to check provenance, had never looked at them. Counting the corpus: 55 why fields with no kind against 16 with one. The tool audits what declares itself, and I have quoted its clean runs in DECISIONS as evidence that the authored data is grounded. That was a statement about 16 of 71. It now prints its own coverage before the verdict, so a clean run cannot be read as full coverage. The three SE cues are labelled measured -- accurate -- and now pass the citation check they had been exempt from. 19 of 71. Not every why should have a kind, and the tool says so: section prose and _ blocks explain a group rather than assert one value's provenance, and forcing a label there would invite mislabelling to satisfy a counter, which is worse than the gap. So it reports the ratio rather than demanding it be 1. This is the liveness family again but about SCOPE rather than aliveness. Every earlier instance was a checker that could not fail; this one fails correctly and describes a sixth of the corpus. 'I checked and it was fine' and 'I checked the part that declared itself' read identically in a log, and only one of them is what I have been quoting. Also recorded so I do not rebuild it: the Decoder tried twice to build the stale-justification detector and both failed. Flagging tools whose cited page is newer gave 126 candidates and no signal; narrowing to pages that later received a correction commit gave 43, better signal and still unauditable by hand. They sampled 3 before publishing and all three were false positives. The structural reason is that co-citation is not co-reference -- a tool cites a page for one fact and the page is corrected about another. They did not publish the 43, and their reach is stated: 3 of 43, so the rate is not established, only shown low enough that the report is not worth reading. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
Sylpheed
A clean-room reverse engineering and port project for Project Sylpheed: Arc of Deception (Xbox 360, 2007).
Three things live here, in one repository so that a change spanning them lands as one commit:
| The decoders | crates/sylpheed-formats — the disc's formats, read and verified disc-wide |
| The port | port/ — a Godot 4 project, plus crates/sylpheed-export which converts a disc into the open asset tree it reads |
| The corpus | docs/re/ — what has been reverse engineered, with its evidence, its retractions and its dead ends |
You need your own copy of the game. No game content is in this repository and none ever will be. The exporter reads the disc you supply.
The oracle is the real game
sylpheed-cliand the Explorer are tools for verifying our decoding. They are hypotheses under test and they have been wrong. When something must be checked against the truth, the truth is the game running in Xenia Canary, captured — not any renderer of ours.
This is stated first because getting it backwards is the most expensive mistake this project has made.
Layout
crates/
sylpheed-formats/ the decoders. Disc-wide verified; the corpus is its spec
sylpheed-cli/ headless tools -- render a screen, dump a table, probe audio
sylpheed-viewer/ the Explorer: a human's window onto the disc. STATIC data only
sylpheed-export/ disc -> the open, moddable asset tree
port/ the Godot 4 project. Reads open formats ONLY
authored/ decisions that are NOT on the disc, each with its reason
data/
base/ generated by the exporter. Gitignored, never hand-edited
mods/ drop-in overrides. Yours
docs/
re/ the corpus: findings, refutations, method traps
game/ how the game is navigated -- menus, modals, flight
port/ the port's mission, its handoff contract, modding rules
-- and RUNNING.md, which is how you actually start it
agents/ how the agent team works together
tools/ capture harnesses, probes, the share tool
exchange/ transient inter-agent files. NOT in git
docker/ the agent containers
Where to start
docs/re/INDEX.md— what is decodeddocs/re/REFUTED.md— what has been tested and dieddocs/re/METHOD.md— traps this project has already paid fordocs/game/navigation.md— how the game is navigateddocs/port/MODDING.md— why the asset tree looks the way it does
Xenia Canary is a separate repository: it is a fork tracking upstream, and it carries our instrumentation.
Conventions
Confidence is per claim, never per document: ✅ CONFIRMED · 🟡 PROBABLE ·
❔ HYPOTHESIS · ❌ REFUTED. A withdrawn result is kept with its reasoning
rather than deleted — that is why the numbers here can be trusted.