Sylpheed/authored/rendering.json

{
  "format": "sylpheed.rendering/1",
  "_": [
    "WHICH decoded rules the runtime applies where. AUTHORED because it is a",
    "choice about the REACH of somebody else's decode, not about the disc.",
    "Delete an entry the day the decode covers the case outright.",
    "",
    "The exporter flags `leaf_carries_geometry` on 15 elements -- those whose",
    "nested `.rat` leaf declares a scale or rotation the parent does not. That",
    "flag is a CENSUS FACT and it is emitted for all 15. What is DECODED is",
    "narrower: the Decoder fitted the game's own composed alpha (per-draw vertex",
    "colours C3FFFFFF / B6FFFFFF = 195 and 182) against the ptloop leaves and got",
    "one consistent time, then PREDICTED the quad centres to ~11 px. That covers",
    "`ptloop01` and `ptloop02` and nothing else."
  ],
  "draw_leaf_for": [
    "ptloop01",
    "ptloop02"
  ],
  "draw_leaf_why": [
    "The two the decode covers. `docs/re/structures/ui-leaf-vs-parent-alpha.md`.",
    "",
    "NOT DRAWN, though the exporter flags them and ships their data:",
    "",
    "  `title_jp/ptlogo_eff2` -- OUT OF SCOPE, which is a better reason than",
    "  the caution this entry first gave. MISSION section 7 scopes out",
    "  'localisation beyond English', and this element exists only on the",
    "  Japanese title. So it is not a thing the menu port has to answer, and the",
    "  parked Japanese-locale capture does not need reviving on its account --",
    "  that is the human's call and not something either agent widens quietly.",
    "",
    "  It is ALSO undecidable here even if it were in scope. Its 125% is a POP,",
    "  not a steady scale: scale-0 -> 125% -> scale-0 between t=50 and t=107,",
    "  about 0.95 s. The leaf draws at 100%, as two superimposed copies at alpha",
    "  160 and 80, each rotating 360 degrees over 960 units -- 16 s a turn. If",
    "  parent scale gates the leaf it is a 0.95 s flash; if the leaf runs free it",
    "  spins for 16 s. Nothing on the disc chooses and title_jp has no oracle",
    "  capture.",
    "  `build_12,15/pgloading_loop5` -- STILL NOT DRAWN, but the reason given here",
    "  was WRONG and is replaced. It read \"leaf scale (0,0). A zero scale is one of",
    "  the three historical failures this corpus names\" -- which describes t=0 and",
    "  t=30 and nothing after them.",
    "",
    "  What the leaf actually holds, read out of the export: ONE element,",
    "  `pgloading_ring`, with a sprite, whose scale ramps 0 -> 250 -> 800 -> 1000",
    "  while its alpha rises to full at t=55 and falls to nothing by t=130. An",
    "  expanding, fading ring -- a loading pulse, not a degenerate record.",
    "",
    "  \ud83d\udd34 And it is VISIBLE at the instant this port poses. `build_12`'s settle",
    "  window is [40, 48], so the pose lands near t=44, where the ring interpolates",
    "  to scale 140 at alpha 143. So withholding it is not declining to draw",
    "  nothing; it is declining to draw something, and the old reason hid that.",
    "",
    "  It stays withheld on the reason below, which is the one that always applied:",
    "  there is no way to adjudicate it here. The loading screens have no oracle",
    "  capture -- the RE agent records them as not reachable from the title path --",
    "  and `verify-screen` compares against a renderer that draws no leaves at all.",
    "  Drawing it would put unadjudicable content on a screen, which is the same",
    "  test `ptlogo_eff2` fails.",
    "",
    "AND THERE IS NO WAY TO ADJUDICATE EITHER HERE. `title_jp` has no oracle",
    "capture, and `verify-screen` compares against `sylpheed-cli`, which does not",
    "draw leaves at all -- so ANY leaf drawing increases that divergence whether",
    "it is right or wrong. Its max went 155 -> 232 when they were drawn, and that",
    "number is not evidence in either direction.",
    "",
    "What deletes this list: a decode covering those cases, or an oracle capture",
    "of title_jp."
  ],
  "draw_leaf_kind": "decoded",
  "loop_leaf_on_screens": [
    "title"
  ],
  "loop_leaf_why": [
    "WHICH screens replay a leaf's group instead of letting it run once and park.",
    "MEASURED on the title, UNRESOLVED on the menus, so it is scoped to the title.",
    "",
    "The disc gives one pass: ptloop01's leaf runs t=0..600 and ptloop02's t=0..720,",
    "each ending parked off-screen at x=1521 / -839. The port ran them once.",
    "",
    "THE ORACLE SAYS THEY LOOP ON THE TITLE. Across two title dwells the sweep quad",
    "oscillates over its whole x range and resets hard to the same start value --",
    "one reset inside the first dwell, two inside the second. A run-once-and-park",
    "shows one traverse and then a constant x.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udd34 THE LOOP-LENGTH FIELD CANNOT SETTLE THIS, and I had hoped it would.",
    "`ptloop01` declares 600 with keyframes to exactly 600; `ptloop02` declares 720",
    "to 720. SLACK ZERO -- and 'loops at 600' and 'runs once for 600 and stops'",
    "write the identical header. 92.3% of records on the disc are in that state, so",
    "the field discriminates loop length only where there IS slack, as the plate's",
    "105-in-120 had.",
    "",
    "\u26a0\ufe0f THE MENUS ARE NOT COVERED, on purpose. Both declare the same 600/720, so",
    "nothing on the disc distinguishes them -- but the oracle measurement is of the",
    "title, and my own weak evidence points the other way for the menu: sweeping the",
    "phase against live-main-menu.png, the port matches best with the sweeps",
    "OFF-SCREEN (0.061%) and three times worse mid-screen (0.183%). If they looped",
    "with a 600-unit period the sweep is on screen for roughly 73% of the cycle, so",
    "a capture showing none is not nothing -- but it is one capture, and 'best",
    "match' is a weak instrument for an absence. Two weak signals in opposite",
    "directions is a reason to scope, not to pick.",
    "",
    "What settles the menu: a direct capture of it, which the Decoder has offered.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udd34 RE-MEASURED 2026-08-31, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE ABOVE WAS TAKEN WITH THE WRONG",
    "BLEND. The phase sweep that produced '0.061 % off-screen, 0.183 % mid-screen'",
    "drew the sweeps ALPHA-OVER. They are additive -- measured off the running game",
    "the same day (`additive_elements`) -- so an on-screen sweep composited the wrong",
    "way was being scored against the capture, and 'mid-screen is worse' could have",
    "been an artefact of my own compositing rather than of the sweeps being absent.",
    "",
    "Re-run with additive sweeps and looping switched on for the menu, against",
    "`live-main-menu.png`:",
    "",
    "    phase   0  0.0208 %   sweeps paint 0 px -- off screen",
    "    phase 150  0.0851 %   sweeps paint 58 027 px, bbox 884x720",
    "    phase 300  0.0205 %   sweeps paint 0 px -- off screen",
    "    phase 75 / 225 / 375 / 450 / 525: 0.086..0.122 %",
    "    run-once-and-park, which is what the port ships: 0.0208 %",
    "",
    "\u2705 THE CONCLUSION HELD AND GOT STRONGER. The ratio was 3x with the wrong blend",
    "and is 4-6x with the right one, and the absolute numbers improved everywhere.",
    "The capture still matches best with the sweeps NOT VISIBLE. So this entry stays",
    "scoped to the title, and the correction is recorded rather than the scoping",
    "changed.",
    "",
    "\u26a0\ufe0f It is still one capture and 'best match' is still a weak instrument for an",
    "absence -- that caveat is not repaired by fixing the blend, only cleared of one",
    "confound.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udccc AND THE NEW DRAW LOG DOES NOT SETTLE IT EITHER, though it looks like it",
    "should. `docs/re/captures/ui-draws/blend-main-menu-2026-08-31.log` shows both",
    "sweep strips SUBMITTED on the main menu, in every frame group. That is not",
    "evidence they animate there: a quad parked off-screen at x=1521 is still a draw",
    "call. A DRAW IS NOT A VISIBLE ELEMENT, and reading that log as 'the sweeps run",
    "on the menu' would have contradicted the pixels for no reason."
  ],
  "loop_leaf_kind": "measured",
  "additive_elements_deleted_why": [
    "\u2705 DELETED 2026-09-01, and the deletion is the point.",
    "",
    "This held `additive_elements`, a per-screen list of element ids transcribed",
    "from the Decoder's per-draw RB_BLENDCONTROL0 log. PORT-MISSION section 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.'",
    "",
    "The blend is now DECODED -- `T8aD +0x04` bit 0x02, docs/re/structures/",
    "ui-blend-mode-decoded.md -- and reachable since formats-pin-2026-09-01 exposed",
    "`ui_layout::sprite_blend_additive` and `blend_additive_by_name`. The exporter",
    "emits `blend_additive` per element and per nested focus/leaf element, and",
    "ScreenView reads it there.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udd34 CHECKED BEFORE THE SWAP, and the map turned out to be a SUBSET rather than",
    "the answer. Over main_menu, extras, press_start and title:",
    "",
    "  15  the map called additive AND the disc agrees",
    "   0  the map called additive and the disc does not   <- no contradictions",
    "  17  the disc calls additive and the map did not",
    "",
    "So nothing transcribed was wrong; it was incomplete, and was being read as",
    "complete. The 17 include `pteff03`/`pteff03a` -- the sweep LEAVES, which are",
    "what `draw_leaf_for` actually puts on screen while the map listed their parents",
    "`ptloop01`/`ptloop02` -- and TWELVE on `title`, where this map was deliberately",
    "empty and the port therefore drew every title effect alpha-over.",
    "",
    "A name-keyed map can only answer for a screen somebody drove the game to. That",
    "is what made the Japanese menus an open question (BLOCKED.md H6): the port drew",
    "main_menu additive and main_menu_jp alpha-over, asserting by omission that the",
    "JP build blends differently. The bit is on the disc for every screen at once, so",
    "that asymmetry is now answered statically and H6 needs no capture."
  ],
  "leaf_clock": {
    "title": {
      "start_units": 107.0,
      "rate": null,
      "start_fraction": 0.5,
      "fraction_from": "title first visible element (t=0)",
      "fraction_to": "press_start ptbtn00 onset (t=214)"
    }
  },
  "leaf_clock_why": [
    "leaf_t = screen_t - start_units. rate is null = the leaf runs at the screen's",
    "rate; nobody has a clock-free measurement of a rate and the one attempt was",
    "withdrawn (below).",
    "",
    "start_units 107 = 0.500 x (214 - 0), resolved HERE from this export's own",
    "declared keyframes. The 0.500 is the measurement; the 107 is arithmetic on it.",
    "",
    "MEASURED as a RATIO, which is the point: (onset - title start) / (plate - title",
    "start) = 0.489 and 0.507 across two independent captures, 3.7% apart",
    "(Decoder, docs/re/f6-unit9-sweep-period-and-onset.md + 15670f4). A ratio needs",
    "no clock, which is why it survived when every unit-valued number did not.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udd34 EVERY TITLE-UNIT FIGURE FROM THE CAPTURES IS WITHDRAWN, twice over:",
    "  - rate 0.514 units/frame: captured frames are PRESENTS and the present rate",
    "    differs per run -- 1168 frames vs 600 for the same animation, 1.947x.",
    "  - offset '+40 units': converted through the plate's declared 12-unit ramp,",
    "    a calibration that puts title-start->plate at 75 units where the declared",
    "    data puts the plate at 238. That is a 3.2x clock conflict, still open, and",
    "    it is F4's `clock: shared` question.",
    "Both were adopted here and both were reverted before shipping.",
    "",
    "\ud83d\udccc The human said the animation LOOKS correct while we were carrying a rate",
    "that would have made it twice too fast. That was evidence against the number",
    "and both agents filed it as a puzzle. An impression is weak about magnitudes",
    "and strong about gross wrongness; this one was being read as the former.",
    "",
    "\u26a0\ufe0f 107 is arithmetic on THIS export's keyframes. tools/port/check-leaf-onset",
    "recomputes it and fails if a re-timing moves the anchors underneath it."
  ]
}