Play-test finding 4, answered as a mechanism and from the disc, so it generalises instead of describing one boot. ui-splash-draw-pass.md excluded a post-process from GPU state and closed with "that softness is in the texture or in which quads are drawn, not in a pass", leaving the two unseparated. It is both, and they are one fact: each logo ships a second texture that IS the blur -- the same artwork outset by exactly 10 px per side, concentric to <=1.5 px, drawn as its own alpha-over quad. Three results, each with its control: * The capture's eight anonymous quads are NAMED from the disc. Predicting each NDC rect from declared position + decoded sprite size matches all eight bijectively; every match <=0.0061, every runner-up >=0.0272, a 4.5-8.9x margin. That margin is the control -- eight similar boxes would match anything. * REFUTES splash-quad-timeline.txt's "the same three rects scaled slightly larger" (my own earlier wording). The x and y scale factors differ by up to 0.28; a uniform scale cannot do that, a fixed 10-px border can. The conclusion it supported (draw all six quads) stands; the model was wrong, and the wrong model tells a port to scale a sprite. * The T8aD blend bit tested OUT of sample on entries 10/11, which were not in its 35-row fit and are the screens under complaint. Pre-registered additive=false for all eight against 0 additive draws in 1048; held 8/8, with the control still reporting 9 additive on entry 6. Also resolves a REFUTED.md 🟡 <our-reader> in the reader's favour: the prediction is ours and the target is the oracle, so the agreement is evidence about the reader rather than a claim resting on it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Jc4pciRArGHfxGGhEbwp5t
3.6 KiB
3.6 KiB