52a2eae4bf
Two corrections to my own recent work, both prompted by the port checking it. First, the settle-time page argued the plate delay discrepancy was an instrument artefact on two legs, and one of them is withdrawn. It said the plate pulse period acts as an internal clock for presentation rate and measured 2.369 s against the corpus s 2.3. That estimate rests on ONE interval between two distinct troughs at a 125 ms sample interval -- uncertainty 0.177 s or 6.7 percent -- and trough-picking on a noisy plateau is fragile enough that re-running it gives 2.628 s, because an adjacent local minimum had been counted as a separate trough. Against the corpus s 2.24 that is +17.3 percent, about two sigma. So the pulse period does not show the run at normal speed; it is too weak to show anything, and cannot resolve a real-time factor below about 7 percent. The conclusion survives on the other leg, which is the sound one: the content-measured 2.247 s agrees with three independent prior readings (2.13 / 2.132 / 2.138), and both its landmarks are sharp content transitions rather than a trough on a plateau. A 17 percent slowdown would have put it at 2.49 s. What that leaves open matters because the port authors from these numbers: the run carries an unmeasured real-time factor under about 7 percent. The plate delay is anchored by agreement with prior runs; the menu build-in and B-to-title are anchored by nothing, so that is a second reason to treat them as provisional. Second, the shared capture is worse than truncated: parec writes the WAV header with zero sizes and patches them on clean exit, so the mid-write copy has RIFF size 8 and data size 0 against 183 MB of actual bytes. Python s wave module refuses to open it; ffmpeg and ffprobe recover by scanning and report a plausible duration, which is exactly why it went unnoticed -- the lenient reader hid it. Also corrects the attribution of the starvation numbers: 39.3 percent and 16680453 frames were measured on the finished local recording, not on the shared artefact. The port measured the shared copy and got 35.6 percent and 15289876 frames, with burst and gap medians agreeing to 0.1 ms. The diagnosis is unaffected but a number must say which artefact it came from. 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.