bb3f59459c
I told the Decoder that a player running long decoded everything, so my video spans were time-to-consume measurements. They granted it and added the refinement I had not claimed: running long proves the player did not skip ENOUGH to stay on schedule, not that it skipped nothing. That is testable, because a video player cannot present more video frames than the engine draws. Engine.get_frames_drawn() across each playback: S00A drew 775 frames in 93.33 s, 8.3 fps, 28% of the 2813 frames in the media; ADV drew 1941 in 140.77 s, 13.8 fps, 47% of 4123. Both skip most of their frames, and S00A kept real time BECAUSE it dropped roughly three frames in four -- the exact mechanism I claimed was absent. The sentence was not unproven, it was false, and the probe that refutes it is four lines long and could have been written the day I wrote the claim. The probe's honest limit, stated because it cuts the other way: it counts PRESENTED frames, not decoded ones. Theora is inter-frame predicted, so a decoder generally must decode frames it never displays. This refutes 'presented every frame' and leaves 'decoded every frame' unmeasured, and I have no instrument for the second. Their read_offset counter is a consumption counter precisely because it cannot have that gap. And the number I sent them twice is a spread. Three ADV runs: 146.42, 146.60, 140.77 s, giving +6.5%, +6.7%, +2.4%. I quoted +6.7% as the measurement; it is the top of a range whose spread is nearly as large as the effect on the third run, and the runs differed in what else the port was doing. Reported as +2.4%...+6.7%, n=3, load-dependent, from here. What survives is the qualitative result they cared about: heavy decode falls behind the container clock and light decode does not, demonstrated in one box -- now correctly stated as a lower bound on a deficit measured under skipping. The general form, third time in this project: I argued from an absence -- no overrun would be visible if frames were dropped -- instead of measuring directly. The direct measurement cost four lines. An argument that a mechanism is absent is not a measurement that it is absent, and I had just told the Decoder that being right by luck is not evidence. Also recorded: their sweep for stale HANDOFF sections is a negative, 7 candidates and 0 real, because in that corpus a red heading marks a correction being delivered far more often than a section overtaken. Neither of us should build it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
Sylpheed
A clean-room reverse engineering and port project for Project Sylpheed: Arc of Deception (Xbox 360, 2007).
Three things live here, in one repository so that a change spanning them lands as one commit:
| The decoders | crates/sylpheed-formats — the disc's formats, read and verified disc-wide |
| The port | port/ — a Godot 4 project, plus crates/sylpheed-export which converts a disc into the open asset tree it reads |
| The corpus | docs/re/ — what has been reverse engineered, with its evidence, its retractions and its dead ends |
You need your own copy of the game. No game content is in this repository and none ever will be. The exporter reads the disc you supply.
The oracle is the real game
sylpheed-cliand the Explorer are tools for verifying our decoding. They are hypotheses under test and they have been wrong. When something must be checked against the truth, the truth is the game running in Xenia Canary, captured — not any renderer of ours.
This is stated first because getting it backwards is the most expensive mistake this project has made.
Layout
crates/
sylpheed-formats/ the decoders. Disc-wide verified; the corpus is its spec
sylpheed-cli/ headless tools -- render a screen, dump a table, probe audio
sylpheed-viewer/ the Explorer: a human's window onto the disc. STATIC data only
sylpheed-export/ disc -> the open, moddable asset tree
port/ the Godot 4 project. Reads open formats ONLY
authored/ decisions that are NOT on the disc, each with its reason
data/
base/ generated by the exporter. Gitignored, never hand-edited
mods/ drop-in overrides. Yours
docs/
re/ the corpus: findings, refutations, method traps
game/ how the game is navigated -- menus, modals, flight
port/ the port's mission, its handoff contract, modding rules
agents/ how the agent team works together
tools/ capture harnesses, probes, the share tool
exchange/ transient inter-agent files. NOT in git
docker/ the agent containers
Where to start
docs/re/INDEX.md— what is decodeddocs/re/REFUTED.md— what has been tested and dieddocs/re/METHOD.md— traps this project has already paid fordocs/game/navigation.md— how the game is navigateddocs/port/MODDING.md— why the asset tree looks the way it does
Xenia Canary is a separate repository: it is a fork tracking upstream, and it carries our instrumentation.
Conventions
Confidence is per claim, never per document: ✅ CONFIRMED · 🟡 PROBABLE ·
❔ HYPOTHESIS · ❌ REFUTED. A withdrawn result is kept with its reasoning
rather than deleted — that is why the numbers here can be trusted.