Attempted to refute sylpheed-port's leaf table by measuring it against the disc.
It SURVIVES to the digit: ptloop01 -> pteff03, cycle span 600, x track
-639..1521, scale (100, 600); ptloop02 -> pteff03a, span 720, x -839..1721,
scale (100, 800).
The existing ptloop_leaf_sweep_at.rs samples only t=340..540 -- a window chosen
to compare two competing fits -- so it could never have shown the extent. That
gap is what let my "ptloop01/02 do not free-run" claim stand: measured over the
parent's 200x90 pivot rect, which a leaf travelling -639..1521 is almost never
inside. ptloop_leaf_extent.rs sweeps the whole cycle instead.
New fact neither of us had: the leaves are IDENTICAL on entries 4, 5 AND 7 --
the title, the main menu and the JP title. Same leaf names, spans, x tracks,
scales and parent rest position. So the menu declares exactly the same sweep as
the title, and the still-open menu question is about the game's behaviour rather
than a different declaration.
The quad is 400 px wide at scale_x 100 % -- not widened -- and scale_y 600/800 %
makes it 1080/1440 px tall, taller than the screen. A full-height strip crossing
the frame and going off both sides, which is why a phase-to-phase diff covers the
union of two positions and looks frame-wide.
And my own "centre running x~921->1041" was a 30-unit window of a 600-unit cycle
whose centre spans -439..1721. A sub-range is not an extent -- the same caution
as a pivot not being a bounding box, one level up, and I made both errors within
a day.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
75543559e2