PORT-MISSION §3: "When the RE agent later decodes something you had authored,
delete the authored entry and let the exporter emit it. That deletion is the
measure of progress." This is that deletion.
authored/rendering.json's `additive_elements` -- a per-screen list transcribed
from the Decoder's per-draw RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log -- is gone. The exporter emits
`blend_additive` per element and per nested focus/leaf element from `T8aD +0x04`
bit 0x02, and ScreenView reads it there. Both accessor spellings are needed:
`ptbtn00f.t32` is in build.sprites while no element carries it as `sprite`, and
it is the sharp case -- the plate alpha-over, its own glow additive, adjacent
draws on one screen.
CHECKED BEFORE THE SWAP, and the map turned out to be a SUBSET, not the answer:
15 elements it called additive the disc agrees with, ZERO contradictions, and 17
MORE the disc marks that it did not. Those include the sweep LEAVES (draw_leaf_for
means pteff03/pteff03a are what reach the screen while the map listed their
parents) and TWELVE on `title`, where the map was deliberately empty -- so the
port has been drawing every title effect with the wrong blend.
H6 closes with no capture at all: the JP asymmetry was an artefact of a
NAME-KEYED map, and the bit is on the disc for every screen at once.
🔴 AND IT INTRODUCED A REGRESSION, WHICH IS REPORTED, NOT HIDDEN. Against the
oracle captures on the GPU: main_menu 10.88 -> 13.02, main_menu_options 11.56 ->
13.57. Deterministic to the digit over three runs, so not sampling noise.
Isolated to ONE element, with a control:
- main_menu's only newly-additive top-level element is pteff10;
- extras gained none and did not move -- the same change on a screen with
nothing new moves nothing;
- the leaf rule was disabled separately and main_menu stayed at 13.02, so
pteff03/pteff03a are NOT the cause. That prediction of mine failed; the rule
is restored, being provably neutral here;
- title did not move despite twelve newly-additive elements, consistent with
verify-capture posing at settle t=198 where those quads are transparent.
That is a potential COUNTER-EXAMPLE to a ✅ DECODED claim, and it is a sharp
question rather than a guess: their own map lists pteff10 additive on `extras`
and not on `main_menu`, and they logged BOTH screens. Asked in BLOCKED.md H6.
Shipped anyway, for reasons stated rather than assumed: +2.14 is inside the
harness's own ±3.78 capture-phase term for that screen and cannot adjudicate a
disc fact; the decoded source is far better evidenced (35 elements, zero errors,
out-of-sample prediction 3 of 16); and fitting an exception for one element would
put an authored entry back to make one number smaller, which is the move this
project keeps having to undo. It is a KNOWN regression, not an unnoticed one.
Also settled this iteration, for the Decoder's open question: the port FADES the
plate, it does not pop it. Frozen sweep of the plate region -- 210u 0.1457,
216u 0.1573, 222u 0.1727, 228u 0.1900, 236u 0.2142 -- a clean monotone ramp
across the declared 214->236. So t=236 is the port's COMPLETION, not its onset,
and the 0.367 s "late plus a pop" reading does not apply.
Not settled: whether pteff10 has a counter-example; H1's repeat half; the four
red verify-screen rows; and finding 3, which still has no cause now that units/s
is settled at 60.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
70799488fe