c01580740e
Three things, and the first is the one worth reading. ❌ MY COUNTER-EXAMPLE FAILED. I reported pteff10 as a possible counter-example to the ✅ DECODED blend bit. It is not: the oracle measures it ADDITIVE on main_menu in all three menu sessions, every frame, entry 5 of blend-bit-vs-oracle.txt. My premise was a stale COVERAGE TABLE of theirs, sitting upstream of its own correction. I inferred "their log does not cover this element" from a summary and called it a contradiction with a capture. The lesson is not that their table was stale -- it is that I treated a summary as the log, having spent three iterations insisting that other people quote instruments rather than conclusions. Their explanation made a prediction, so I checked it rather than accepting it: if additive and alpha-over nearly coincide on a dim glow, why did my score move 20 %? Diffing the two renders, where pteff10's blend is the only change: identical 373 588 px (40.5 %) differing > 3 330 794 px (35.9 %) MAX difference 32 levels pixels >= 60: 0 Their explanation holds and my scepticism does not. Nothing moves more than 32/255. What moved the RMSE is AREA. 📌 And that generalises past this row: raw-rmse is AREA-WEIGHTED, so a shallow change over a third of the frame moves it far more than a deep change over a few hundred pixels, and the number alone cannot say which you have. 10.88 -> 13.02 reads like a serious regression and is invisible to an eye. Any verify-capture row that moves should be asked "broad or deep?" first; it costs one histogram. I did NOT take their suggestion to exclude the element from the metric. The reason to exclude -- "the metric cannot distinguish these" -- is now measured to be false; it distinguishes them fine and weights them by area. Excluding would remove the only signal that would fire if the bit were wrong elsewhere. ✅ H5 CLOSES, as a side effect. pgloading_loop5 -- the element I had localised all 951 differing pixels to -- carries blend_additive, and ui_layout.rs has no additive path, so the reference cannot reproduce that draw by construction. build_00/build_01 agreed only because they never draw it; with the decoded field they gained loop1/loop4 additive and now differ too, as predicted. 🟢 The strongest corroboration of the decoded field came unfitted, from the rows I was not looking at. EN/JP twins were 4.1x and 7.8x apart under the name-keyed map and are now 1.1 % and 1.3 % apart (main_menu 7.26 vs 7.34, extras 6.98 vs 7.07). A disc-wide field predicts locale twins render identically; a screen-name map cannot. That prediction was not available to me before the swap. 🔴 AND I BROKE MY OWN ALLOWANCE, silently, one iteration after building it. check-all's verify-screen allowance derived from authored/rendering.json's additive_elements -- the key I deleted last commit -- so it evaluated to EMPTY and would have failed six rows for no reason anyone could read off the output. Caught by going to look, not by the check. A derived allowance is only as durable as the thing it derives from, and I pointed this one at a file I then emptied. It now derives from the EXPORT. ⚠️ That is LOOSER and the cost is stated: 12 of 16 screens qualify and verify-screen goes fully green. Measured after the swap the two sets line up exactly -- all 10 differing screens have a drawn additive element, all 6 agreeing screens have none -- but a screen differing for some OTHER reason would now be excused. 📌 The real fix is not here: verify-screen compares two renderers and one cannot express a blend the disc declares. Giving ui_layout.rs an additive path would make it meaningful again. PROPOSED, not done -- their crate, and their refutation of additive predates the measurement that overturned it. Not settled: finding 3, which now has no surviving named cause at all -- the Decoder is taking the clock origin, on the grounds that every measurement either of us has made is a DIFFERENCE and a difference cannot detect a common offset. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AHUQvXGyNcKonSEWsgWcX
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
-- and RUNNING.md, which is how you actually start it
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.