Their oracle run refutes their own 'may not draw these leaves' hypothesis and
confirms my title curve from the game. Checked against my export:
Rotation: the export carries rotation_deg +30 on pteff03 and -45 on pteff03a,
constant across all four keyframes, matching their ROT flag. spin_period_units
returns 0 for four-keyframe elements so the spin override does not fire and the
port draws the declared angle.
Directions: ptloop01 runs -639 -> 1521, ptloop02 runs 1721 -> -839 -- their strip
A and strip B.
Height: a 30-unit phase step changes a band 1121x720 and 1137x720, full frame
height, which is what a 1134/1303 px strip on a 720 px screen must produce.
The correction: their rate check divided 2160 px by a 600-unit cycle to get 3.6
px/unit, but the last segment HOLDS. pteff03 moves over t=0..540 then sits at 1521;
pteff03a moves over 0..630 of 720. Corrected: 4.00 and 4.06 px/unit, predicting
8.0 px/frame against their measured 6-7. That widens the gap from 7.2-vs-6.5 to
8.0-vs-6.5, so 'the rate matches the disc' does not survive the corrected span,
and a lower emulator frame rate moves the prediction the wrong way.
A cycle length is not a motion duration -- same family as a pivot anchor read as a
drawn extent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
b8d1b397ea