sylpheed-port's BLOCKED.md ask #1. They declined to suppress their uniform
black_hold on the cancel path because (B) menu->title was one transition. The
test says they were right.
EXTRAS -> main menu, also via (B): the outgoing quad ramps frames 34-38 (5
frames, exactly build 6's declared 10 units), then frames 39 AND 40 are
completely empty -- 3 draws, zero textured, a harder black than either earlier
capture -- then the incoming menu's quad decays 41-45. So (B) does not imply a
cross-fade; menu->title is the outlier of three, and the generalisation I was one
step from publishing is false.
The screen was verified, not assumed. screen_id.py cannot separate EXTRAS from
the main menu, so which_title_screen.py checked the armed frame: extras 18.58 vs
main_menu 29.85, margin 11.27, inside the 9.9-11.7 band its control sets on four
known captures.
Three transitions now agree on one thing and disagree on another:
outgoing ramp = the declared final ramp, THREE FOR THREE, against three
different declared values (10u/5f, 8u/4f, 10u/5f), and exactly linear where
nothing overlaps it. Authorable from the file.
black gap = none / 3 frames / 2 frames. Not a per-button property, not a
per-direction property, not a constant. black_hold_units should not be
authored as one.
Build 5's incoming ramp is confirmed at 12 units by its RATE rather than its
count: the count came out 5 against a predicted 6 in both runs -- reproducible,
so not noise -- but capture 3's steps are -21, -42, -43, -42, i.e. 255/6 per
frame after a half-step start. Capture 2's decay does not fit that and is
unexplained.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
589d23e44a