Tracing Stage 02 phase 1 by control flow (following op 12 jumps and the six
conditional branches) gives the whole chain: timer5 @ 4.0s -> trigger 0x2D30
(which also does timer_set/timer_resume) -> start_coroutine at 0x2FE8 ->
coroutine 0xBB9C, whose body is wait_s(0.2) ; yield -> ... -> 0xF524, the
ADN110/111/112 polls that latch set_flag(8).
Exactly one of phase 1's 79 coroutine entries reaches 0xF524 under a real
control-flow walk, and it is a 0.2s polling loop. So the condition is checked at
5 Hz from 4 seconds into the phase, and my 'the condition coroutine is not
polling' explanation -- which I had promoted to real evidence after the poke
experiments -- is withdrawn.
Two weaker methods gave wrong answers first and are named: linear decode fell
through into unrelated code and implicated 30-odd entries; 'nearest preceding
entry' implicated the right one only by proximity luck, 0x3988 bytes away. And I
matched start_coroutine operands across phases at first, which is meaningless
since the operand is relative to [phase+232] -- the same per-phase base trap that
broke isl.py's jump targets, hit again three iterations later.
The poke results now need a different explanation. The likeliest is that neither
poke produced the tested state: +16 is never read by built-in 69, and +4 = 0
takes the early-exit path an UNDEPLOYED unit also takes. Recorded as a hypothesis
with the experiment that would settle it.
795bbf303c