The port challenged HANDOFF's "costs one element's blend on one screen" with a
census of 105 elements sharing a layer key across 12 of 16 screens. The two
numbers count different things -- elements vs overlapping pairs -- so it is not
the contradiction it looked like, but the objection stands and the line was
wrong.
paint_order_audit already reports overlapping ties per entry, and over all 16
GP_TITLE entries: 5 use a measured order and carry no tie risk; of the 11 that
fall back to the derived order, 7 have overlapping ties, 24 pairs in total. The
Japanese title (entry 7) alone has 16, because it is the twin of the one build
whose measured order exists and has none of its own.
Overlap bounds where a wrong tie-break COULD show, not what it costs; nobody has
measured how many of the 24 change a pixel, and the port is right about that too.
The rule itself is unaffected: the layer key is still decoded and the derived
order still reproduces every measured order exactly except the title's eight
tied pairs.
Census committed at docs/re/data/paint-order-ties-gp_title.txt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Nsxw1A9JseUw99Yw1ZRQzY
6c05b72099