088df913b2
REFUTED.md kills this claim: 'T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02 selects an additive blend -> mine, and refuted. Blending those sprites additively worsens every measure against the capture.' That refutation rests entirely on our renderer, which the corpus's own rule calls a hypothesis under test. The blend is now measured off the GPU, so the claim can be tested against the oracle. 35 elements over three screens, every label an RB_BLENDCONTROL0 value read from the command stream: 16 bit-set and additive, 19 bit-clear and alpha-over, zero false positives, zero false negatives. The control that makes it a decode rather than a coincidence: of every bit of the first 12 header words, EXACTLY ONE separates those 35 elements without error. Nothing ties with it. A perfect partition on a small sample is worthless if half the header partitions equally well, which is the mistake +0x08 = 0x8050 was. And the pair no confound survives: ptbtn00 = 0x0110, ptbtn00f = 0x0112 -- the PRESS (A) plate and its own highlight, same screen, differing in exactly this bit, drawn alpha-over and additive respectively. Committed alongside is a PREDICTION for GP_OPTIONS, written before the capture that tests it: a different archive, a different element set, and a MIXED prediction -- po_menu_eff01/02/03 additive, 592 elements alpha-over. Falsified if those three draw alpha-over or anything else draws additive. The developer splash was considered first and rejected as a test: both its elements predict alpha-over, so it can fail but cannot discriminate. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
3.8 KiB
3.8 KiB