The Decoder overturned the elimination I was most confident about. I ruled out
the ptloop sweeps because "399x180 at (441,270), keyframes hold position
constant". That is the PARENT's record. The geometry is in the leaf.
ptloop01 parent: scale (100,100) rot 0, fixed at (441,270)
LEAF: scale (100,600) rot +30, x sweeping -639 -> -39 -> 1521
ptloop02 parent: scale (100,100) rot 0, fixed at (441,270)
LEAF: scale (100,800) rot -45, x sweeping 1721 -> 1111 -> -839
Two ~1080 and ~1440 px quads leaning opposite ways and sweeping across the frame,
against two 400 px sprites drawn upright and static in the middle. That is
exactly the signature I measured -- darker centre-left, brighter right, nearly
cancelling -- and the GPU capture puts their centres at x ~ 467 and 992, the two
cells where my signed difference peaked.
`ui_layout`'s own doc comment said it: "the rotated quads come from its two
nested .rat leaf records, which the census never opened". Neither did this
exporter -- it opened a leaf in exactly one place, `highlight_name`, for focus
records.
IT IS NOT TWO ELEMENTS, IT IS 45: every button on every menu (the benign case,
where screen.rs already knew the leaf duplicates the parent and the parent wins),
the four loading screens' pgloading_loop*, and title_jp's ptlogo_eff2 -- which is
the element DECISIONS has recorded since P1 as the largest render disagreement in
the export, and which has a TWO-element leaf. A lead, not a conclusion.
EMITTED, DELIBERATELY NOT DRAWN. One `read_leaf` closure serves both the new path
and the focus path, because a second copy is how this would go missing again.
ScreenView ignores the data: parent and leaf each carry their own alpha ramp over
a different span (parent 0->255 over t=70..238, leaf 255->0x80->255 over
t=150..600), so how they compose is a decoding question, and drawing on a guess
would replace a visible 1.82% gap with an invisible wrong one. verify-screen
confirms nothing moved.
Additive blending is refuted -- the Decoder tested T8aD +0x04 bit 0x02 and "every
measure worsens", and the export carries no blend field because none has been
found (no RB_BLENDCONTROL in the per-draw capture). My hypothesis from last
iteration is dead.
This makes the port's biggest oracle gap the same item as the rotation question
already standing with the human: sylpheed-cli deliberately does not rotate, which
is why both renderers show it, and MISSION's "Needs a human decision -- rotation"
now has a number: 1.82% of the title's pixels.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
9ad8f63234