be6207822d
pilot.py gained SYLPH_PREFER, a unit-name substring whose matches get their target score multiplied by 0.05 while everything else is multiplied by 4.0. With SYLPH_PREFER=e010 a clean 320 s run, zero stalls by the witness, killed eight turrets and two Attacker_S. The preference is real -- e010 kills went from roughly one across all previous runs to two in a single run -- but it is weak. Turrets still outnumber attackers four to one in the kill log, because target commitment and simple proximity keep pulling the nose back to them, and phase 1 fields 108 turret craft against 16 attackers. Deployed stayed at 41 throughout, so no phase advance. That quantifies the blocker. Clearing the marked attackers means destroying 16 craft, and at two per 320 s that is about 2560 seconds, roughly 43 minutes of continuous verified-live flight across many chained attaches, against a freeze rate of about two runs in five. This is no longer a reverse-engineering problem. Everything needed to observe the phase advance is built and validated -- the roster-to-craft link, the liveness read, the stall witness, chained attaches and the discard rule. What is missing is a pilot good enough to complete the mission objective, which is game-playing work with an uncertain payoff. The choice is recorded rather than made, because it is about how much effort one confirmation is worth rather than a technical unknown: invest in the pilot, accept the static answer where only the trigger is inferred rather than observed, or attempt one very long chained run betting against the freeze rate.
Reverse-engineering knowledge base
This directory is the spec-side of the clean-room: it records what the original Project Sylpheed binary does (behaviour) and how its data is laid out, so that the Rust port can be implemented from these specs without re-deriving anything and without ever copying original code.
It exists to answer one question fast: "do we already know how X works, and how sure are we?"
The one rule that matters
Never document a claim more confidently than the evidence supports, and never paste original code here.
A wrong-but-confident note is worse than no note: someone builds on it and the bug hides for weeks. Every entry therefore carries an explicit confidence and its evidence. This mirrors the project method — measure the oracle, never infer; refute before believing.
Clean-room firewall
- ✅ Allowed: behaviour descriptions, field offsets/types, formulas, state machines,
observed input→output pairs, and references to the original by address
(
sub_821B68C0) or toxenia-rs/sylpheed.db. - ❌ Forbidden here and in
crates/: pasted decompiled C/C++ or verbatim disassembled function bodies presented as the thing to reimplement. Cite the address; describe the behaviour in your own words. Disassembly is a tool for understanding, not a source to copy.
Confidence levels
| Level | Meaning | Bar to reach it |
|---|---|---|
CONFIRMED |
Behaviour verified against ground truth. | ≥2 independent observations or one observation cross-checked against an oracle (canary framebuffer, a known-correct value, a second code path). |
PROBABLE |
Strong single-source inference. | One clean observation, or an unambiguous static read of the disassembly. |
HYPOTHESIS |
Educated guess, not yet tested. | Anything else. Must say what would confirm/refute it. |
Promotion requires new evidence, not re-reading the old evidence. A HYPOTHESIS that
"looks right again" is still a HYPOTHESIS. Only an independent check promotes it.
If evidence later contradicts an entry, demote it and record the contradiction — do
not silently edit the conclusion.
When to document
- Right after a function/structure crosses from
HYPOTHESISto at leastPROBABLE— before moving to the next code path, so the knowledge isn't lost or re-derived. - Whenever confidence changes (up or down) — append to the Evidence log, don't overwrite.
- Not while it's still a pure guess with no evidence — a one-liner in the relevant backlog/plan is enough until there's something to stand on.
What to document
- Functions/code paths →
docs/re/functions/<name>.md(one file per function or tight cluster). - Data structures / formats →
docs/re/structures/<name>.md. - Keep the index in
INDEX.md(one line each: name · confidence · one-line summary).
Use the templates: _TEMPLATE.function.md,
_TEMPLATE.structure.md.
How we find and confirm code paths (the toolchain)
Everything joins on the guest virtual address (PC) — code addresses are fixed by the XEX load, identical across our emulator and canary.
- Static (cheap, try first):
xenia-rs/sylpheed.db(DuckDB: 25 481 functions, xrefs, strings, vtables, imports). Query withxenia-rs/zq.py—zq.py grep <str>,zq.py xref <addr>,zq.py dis <lo> <hi>,zq.py fn <pc>. Entry points are usually a string (zq.py grep MSG_DEMO) or an import (movie/XMA API) xref'd back to the loader. - Dynamic (when static is ambiguous): run
xenia-rswith its probe suite —--pc-probe/--audit-pc-probe-hex(fires at block entry),--mem-watch(mid-block reads/writes of a VA),--lr-trace(call/return chains),--trace-instructions,--dump-addr(read guest memory). These already exist; prefer them over hacking canary. - Oracle (correctness ground truth): canary — the Wine cross-build
xenia-canary/build-cross/bin/Windows/Debug/xenia_canary.exe(the native Linux ELF crashes / does not run — do not use it). This is the only emulator that reaches the in-game menu; ourxenia-rsnever got past the intro video. Use canary to observe output (capture its framebuffer for texture colours), not usually to instrument code — though itsbuild-crosstoolchain does compile, so small C++ probes + rebuild are possible when needed. Run muted, one emulator process at a time, point it at the real ISO (not the symlink).
⚠️ VA-equality caveat: join code by PC (fixed), but never assume a data VA holds the same bytes across emulators — allocators differ. Compare data by content/layout.