Files
Sylpheed/authored
Sylpheed port agent 271c49d21f port: transcribe the sweeps' additive blend, and re-run my own menu-looping evidence with it
ui-blend-mode-measured.md names both rotated sweep strips additive in the same row
as the frames. Those are ptloop01/ptloop02 here, now in additive_elements for both
measured screens. It changes nothing visible: on the menus the port runs the leaf
group once and parks it off-screen, and suppressing both sprites at leaf-time 100,
200 and 300 changes 0 pixels each time. It is in the file because it is measured.

Refutation attempt on their identification, and it survives with a number of mine.
The automatic matcher reports "no match" for those two draws; they rest on one
control reproducing heights 1134 and 1303. Rendering the menu at a phase where the
sweeps are on screen and suppressing them gives a footprint 884 px wide against
their 889.6 -- 0.6 % apart, derived without using their number. The heights differ
as they should: my bbox is clipped by the screen, theirs is the full quad extent.

The blend was a confound in my own earlier evidence. loop_leaf_why scoped looping
to the title partly on a phase sweep of mine that drew the sweeps ALPHA-OVER, so
an on-screen sweep was composited wrongly and then scored against the capture. Re-
run with additive and looping enabled for the menu, through a scratch export root
so the repo was untouched: parked 0.0208 %, phase 150 on-screen 0.0851 % with the
sweeps painting 58 027 px, other on-screen phases 0.086-0.122 %.

The conclusion held and got stronger -- 3x with the wrong blend, 4-6x with the
right one -- so the scoping stays and the correction is what is recorded. Still one
capture, and best-match is still weak evidence for an absence.

And a reading of the new log that I did not make: it shows both sweeps SUBMITTED
on the main menu in every frame group, which is not evidence they animate there. A
quad parked off-screen at x=1521 is still a draw call. The log settles the blend
and not the visibility, and both questions arrived in the same artefact.
2026-08-31 06:23:19 +00:00
..

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.