The kind-0 condition tester sub_8226DAF8 resolves a symbol as well, but from
payload+4 rather than +28:
8226DB14 rlwinm r10, r5, 2, 0, 29 ; r5 = payload+4, x4
8226DB24 lwz r11, 244(r30) ; [phase+244] = symbol table 1
8226DB3C lwzx r10, r10, r11
8226DB50 addi r4, r11, 4 ; -> the name string
Both appenders write local[12] into whichever slot their own path reads -- built-in 19
into +4, built-in 25 into +4 and +28 -- so the same operand is the symbol either way,
and it resolves cleanly:
built-in 19 local[12] -> symtab 1 79 / 79 all symbol type 1
built-in 25 local[12] -> symtab 1 25 / 25 all symbol type 1
isl-builtins.md records symtab-1 type 1 as the Route_* names, and the samples agree:
Route_ADN106_p1F, Route_ADN1xxe1_p1F, Route_ADS101_p1F, Route_TCN004_p1S.
So both built-ins register a trigger on a UNIT reaching a ROUTE -- payload+0 is the
unit, local[12] the route. They differ only in the payoff: built-in 19 additionally
carries a handler routine (local[32] -> payload+28, kind 0 -> spawn) while built-in 25
carries none (kind 1 -> no spawn). That is a third independent agreement with
isl.py's SYM1_SLOTS, which lists slot 12 for both and was derived from operand ranges
alone.
It also joins up with the closed REMAINING OB work, where the counter was measured to
rise at a squadron's route arrival time -- route triggers are the mechanism that would
do that. Recorded as a connection, not a demonstration: nothing here traces a trigger
to that counter.
All artefacts regenerate byte-identical; documentation only.
Still unread: what the conditions actually COMPARE -- only sub_8226DAF8's first ~34
instructions are read, up to the name lookup, and sub_8226DC80 not at all -- and
payload+8, a computed value passed to both testers. A waypoint index would fit it,
which is exactly why it is not being called one.
5670716566