311bd16ad8
test that refutes 105 Two claims shipped this morning are withdrawn, and the port had already acted on one of them. WITHDRAWN 1: "eff3 was never drawn because a 2-unit flash peak is sub-frame." eff3's alpha is non-zero for t in (58,64), and the capture's frames 133 and 134 sit at t = 60.0 and 62.2 -- squarely inside that window, with eff2 and eff4 both drawn in the same frames. It should have been submitted and was not. The absence is real and UNEXPLAINED; it is not sampling phase. WITHDRAWN 2: "a port drawing all five flashes shows more sweep than the console". No evidence behind it. The port checked against its own renderer and found it draws them sequentially at their declared times, never more than two at once -- which is exactly what frames 131-135 show the game doing. The pile-up worth warning about was the rest() bug, now fixed. Kept, at the port's request: a frame-by-frame comparison of the build-in WILL disagree about which flash lands in which frame -- 2 units per submitted frame against this run's 2.231 units per presented frame -- and neither side is wrong. Without that stated, the discrepancy reads as a port defect. Added, and stronger than the argument it replaces: a calibration-free test of 105 vs 120. The glow's draw is omitted when its alpha reaches zero, and the smallest alpha actually submitted across 807 drawn frames is 1, so the culling threshold is read off the data rather than assumed. Measured dark fraction 17.7% (173 of 980 settled frames); a 120-unit cycle with its declared 15-unit hold predicts 14.4%; a 105-unit cycle predicts 2.2%. 105 is out by 8x and would need a threshold of alpha 11 out of a peak of 80, while the capture contains submitted draws at alpha 1..12. No frame rate, no pacing factor, no wall clock. Also recorded: a regression of five build-in events against their declared times (residuals <=0.9 frames) recovers t=0 at frame 106.1 when the composite spike, not in the fit, is frame 107 -- and that same slope makes the glow's period imply a 114-unit cycle against a declared 120, which is unexplained. And the vertex-alpha identity holds for the glow but does NOT generalise: eff4 reads 255/127/254 on consecutive frames. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QsEPXWVaEpyfudtR6re1Pd
Reverse-engineering knowledge base
This directory is the spec-side of the clean-room: it records what the original Project Sylpheed binary does (behaviour) and how its data is laid out, so that the Rust port can be implemented from these specs without re-deriving anything and without ever copying original code.
It exists to answer one question fast: "do we already know how X works, and how sure are we?"
The one rule that matters
Never document a claim more confidently than the evidence supports, and never paste original code here.
A wrong-but-confident note is worse than no note: someone builds on it and the bug hides for weeks. Every entry therefore carries an explicit confidence and its evidence. This mirrors the project method — measure the oracle, never infer; refute before believing.
Clean-room firewall
- ✅ Allowed: behaviour descriptions, field offsets/types, formulas, state machines,
observed input→output pairs, and references to the original by address
(
sub_821B68C0) or toxenia-rs/sylpheed.db. - ❌ Forbidden here and in
crates/: pasted decompiled C/C++ or verbatim disassembled function bodies presented as the thing to reimplement. Cite the address; describe the behaviour in your own words. Disassembly is a tool for understanding, not a source to copy.
Confidence levels
| Level | Meaning | Bar to reach it |
|---|---|---|
CONFIRMED |
Behaviour verified against ground truth. | ≥2 independent observations or one observation cross-checked against an oracle (canary framebuffer, a known-correct value, a second code path). |
PROBABLE |
Strong single-source inference. | One clean observation, or an unambiguous static read of the disassembly. |
HYPOTHESIS |
Educated guess, not yet tested. | Anything else. Must say what would confirm/refute it. |
The status markers
The table above is the confidence scale. The markers that appear in
BACKLOG.md and the structures/ pages are a separate, and until now undefined,
vocabulary. They mean:
| Marker | Meaning |
|---|---|
| ✅ | Confirmed — verified against ground truth. |
| 🟡 | Partial: true as far as it goes, or true under a stated assumption. |
| ❔ | Open question. Nobody has answered it yet. |
| 🔴 | Refuted — shown false — or blocked by something the container cannot do. |
| ❌ | A specific claim that was tried and failed. Prefer 🔴. |
| 🚧 | Work started and not finished. |
🔴 never means "we have not run it yet." That is ❔ or 🚧. Reserve 🔴's "blocked" sense for a real limit of the box — no push credentials, no hardware Vulkan (lavapipe only), or a decision only the user can make. The box can run the emulator, script input, screenshot, read guest memory, and build and test Rust, so "needs a run" is never a blocker. This paragraph exists because the marker was undefined for 98 uses and three of them were mislabelled that way.
Promotion requires new evidence, not re-reading the old evidence. A HYPOTHESIS that
"looks right again" is still a HYPOTHESIS. Only an independent check promotes it.
If evidence later contradicts an entry, demote it and record the contradiction — do
not silently edit the conclusion.
When to document
- Right after a function/structure crosses from
HYPOTHESISto at leastPROBABLE— before moving to the next code path, so the knowledge isn't lost or re-derived. - Whenever confidence changes (up or down) — append to the Evidence log, don't overwrite.
- Not while it's still a pure guess with no evidence — a one-liner in the relevant backlog/plan is enough until there's something to stand on.
What to document
- Functions/code paths →
docs/re/functions/<name>.md(one file per function or tight cluster). - Data structures / formats →
docs/re/structures/<name>.md. - Keep the index in
INDEX.md(one line each: name · confidence · one-line summary).
Use the templates: _TEMPLATE.function.md,
_TEMPLATE.structure.md.
How we find and confirm code paths (the toolchain)
Everything joins on the guest virtual address (PC) — code addresses are fixed by the XEX load, identical across our emulator and canary.
- Static (cheap, try first):
xenia-rs/sylpheed.db(DuckDB: 25 481 functions, xrefs, strings, vtables, imports). Query withxenia-rs/zq.py—zq.py grep <str>,zq.py xref <addr>,zq.py dis <lo> <hi>,zq.py fn <pc>. Entry points are usually a string (zq.py grep MSG_DEMO) or an import (movie/XMA API) xref'd back to the loader. - Dynamic (when static is ambiguous): run
xenia-rswith its probe suite —--pc-probe/--audit-pc-probe-hex(fires at block entry),--mem-watch(mid-block reads/writes of a VA),--lr-trace(call/return chains),--trace-instructions,--dump-addr(read guest memory). These already exist; prefer them over hacking canary. - Oracle (correctness ground truth): canary — the Wine cross-build
xenia-canary/build-cross/bin/Windows/Debug/xenia_canary.exe(the native Linux ELF crashes / does not run — do not use it). This is the only emulator that reaches the in-game menu; ourxenia-rsnever got past the intro video. Use canary to observe output (capture its framebuffer for texture colours), not usually to instrument code — though itsbuild-crosstoolchain does compile, so small C++ probes + rebuild are possible when needed. Run muted, one emulator process at a time, point it at the real ISO (not the symlink).
⚠️ VA-equality caveat: join code by PC (fixed), but never assume a data VA holds the same bytes across emulators — allocators differ. Compare data by content/layout.