Method-diffing settled the structure but not the semantics, so nothing is
named this time.
26 damage_unit vt76 sub_8226ACD0 (67) opcode 800 97 sites
28 vt84 sub_82268F98 (69) opcode 801 410 sites
29 vt88 sub_822690B0 (69) opcode 802 164 sites
101 vt276 sub_822691C8 (78) opcode 802 133 sites (broadcast)
28 and 29 differ in two words only -- the opcode (0x21BA vs 0x22BA) and a
descriptor pointer 8 bytes apart -- and are otherwise instruction-identical.
All three take (unit, double). 26 differs from both by one guard: it rejects
only state 3, while 28 and 29 reject states 1 and 3.
The operand distributions separate them:
26 97 sites 7 distinct [0, 100] 0 x69, 80 x10, 100 x6
28 410 sites 13 distinct [0, 2000] 200 x116, 120 x76, 300 x74
29 164 sites 6 distinct [0, 100] 0 x64, 100 x53, 50 x38
26 and 29 are percentage-shaped; 28 is an absolute quantity an order of
magnitude larger.
That casts doubt on an existing name. damage_unit (26) passes 0 in 69 of its
97 calls -- dealing zero damage is a no-op, so 71% of its call sites would do
nothing, while SETTING a percentage-valued property to 0 is a natural thing
to do 69 times. 29 has the same shape. The name predates this session and I
have not withdrawn it, but it should not be relied on.
Where this stopped: the three commands' descriptors at 0x820A8D10/+8/+16
point into 0x8210E5xx, which is BELOW the disassembly DB's range (it starts
at 0x82150000) and holds no code, so that route cannot reach an execute
method. Opcodes 800-802's semantics need the interpreter command table
instead.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PMRJjbxLqZtsb5Vb7KunPE
510dcf29d8