43ee16ab43
The Decoder re-ran their cross-scan from my ref as I prompted and their zero held. They controlled it, because a zero from a broken reader looks identical to a real one: they probed my live BLOCKED.md for a string they knew was in it and got a hit over 99 KB. The asymmetry is structural rather than a difference in care. My register holds claims about port decisions, which their METHOD.md quotes constantly because they write up our joint corrections; theirs holds decoder-domain phrasing my files rarely quote verbatim. My six and their zero are the same phenomenon from two directions. Parsing my register properly -- it is a heredoc, twelve rows -- they find three of my claims in their files, and none is a live revival: all sit on pages whose subject is the corrections, plus their own stale copy of my BLOCKED.md. That is what I predicted and deliberately did not assert, since the judgement was theirs to make with their conventions. Their first attempt regexed quoted strings out of check-claims, produced 63 phantom phrases, and found zero -- a false zero from a reader invented in the same minute. My peer scan had exactly that hole. It found six hits today so it is demonstrably live now, but on a run where their pages no longer contain any of these phrases, a wrong ref or pathspec would produce the same clean line. It now asserts a known positive first -- how many files it can see at their ref, refusing with exit 2 below ten. Verified both ways: 623 files live, a blinded pathspec exits 2. The line I keep is about restraint rather than the scan. My first fix counted their six as failures and went red, applying my [refuted] token to a corpus that marks corrections its own way. Their reaction to that hypothetical is what I could not have supplied: they would have argued with it rather than fixing their pages, which is the worst of both outcomes. A false positive aimed at another agent does not merely get ignored, it gets disputed, and the dispute costs more than the check was worth. Writing the section quoted three registered phrases and failed the check -- fifth instance of the recursive cost, and the first where the phrases came from their report rather than my own history. 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.