`compose` claimed the derived paint order "reproduces both measured
orders up to ties". That sentence was never measured and was stale by
one: there are three measured orders, not two. examples/paint_order_audit.rs
checks it.
main menu (entries 5, 8) derived == measured 0 inverted pairs
developer splash (11, 14) derived == measured 0 inverted pairs
title (entry 4) DIFFERS 8, all same-key ties
So the claim holds and the exception is entirely ties -- but two of those
ties are total occlusions, not near-misses. The tied family is the five
ptlogo_back2eff glows (key 32899); back2eff5 is 1133x280 and FULLY
CONTAINS back2eff3 (82,824 px^2 = 100% of the smaller) and back2eff4
(152,047 px^2 = 100%). Derived paints it on top of two glows it entirely
covers; the game paints it underneath. A tie-break by declaration index
can therefore be wrong by a whole layer. The title itself is unaffected --
it has a measured order.
The port's actual exposure, per screen: title, main menu and developer
splash all use MEASURED orders; the publisher splash is derived but has
ZERO ties, so it is fully determined; EXTRAS is derived with 15 tied
pairs of which only 2 OVERLAP. Two element pairs on one screen is the
whole risk, and that is what HANDOFF now says -- not the raw 15, which
would have overstated it 7x.
Reach stated: this compares the derived order against orders measured
from the game, not an independent derivation, so where no measured order
exists only the tie exposure can be checked. Overlap uses pivot*2 as the
element size at its resting placement.
Stale comment in compose corrected. METHOD: a hedge in a code comment is
an unmeasured claim; and count the cases that can bite, not the ones that
match the pattern.
af43563806