6ac5780901
The Decoder withdrew 'entries 2/3 are an EN/JP pair' -- stated as a fact in the same HANDOFF row that identifies DIFFICULTY, and never established. I had copied it into authored/flow.json, twice. It sat inside the clause where I was being careful. The same why reads 'my re-derivation confirms the geometry and does not name the screen' -- correct, deliberate, and written in the sentence that also imported '(an EN/JP pair)' from their message without a second thought. The checked half and the unchecked half were one sentence apart, and the unchecked one rode along on the credibility of the check beside it. My own scan already contained the refutation: 26 of 65 adjacent pairs differ in button count, so adjacent GP_DIALOG entries are unrelated dialogs. Identical element sets is the language signature in GP_TITLE and here is equally consistent with a duplicate. Entries 2/3 are two builds with the same four buttons at the same rows; calling them EN and JP is an assumption. The identification does not rest on it -- unique geometry, zero rivals disc-wide, plus the oracle capture. The pairing was decoration on a conclusion that stands without it, which is exactly why it travelled unchecked. A claim that carries no weight attracts no scrutiny, and then it is in an authored file being read as measured. Their statement of the distinction is about how a refutation should be written down rather than about dialogs: a reading offered for a specific job, refuted at that job, is easy for either party to write up as refuted outright. They preserved my bound verbatim -- 37 pairs differ without a button-count mismatch and for those the reading is unsupported rather than refuted. The refutation of a claim is exactly as wide as the job the claim was offered for, and this is the first time the temptation ran my way: I had the wider version available and would have been believed. 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.