c6b3256574
The Decoder withdrew 120 and returned to 60, which the port never left. Nothing has to be undone. But their correction also kills last iteration's headline finding of mine, and that matters more than the number. 🔴 WITHDRAWN: "the port has no hold" and "two errors that cancel". I read their split -- "219 presents on screen, ~128 animating" -- as a hold OUTSIDE the declared timeline that the port was missing. It is a split WITHIN it. The publisher ramps 0-30, HOLDS 30-235 (205 units, 80.4 % of the screen) and fades 235-255, and this port plays all three. Measured rather than read. Frozen samples of the logo region: t=0.25 s (15 u) 0.390957 mid-ramp t=1.00 s (60 u) 0.405488 t=2.00 s (120 u) 0.405488 t=3.00 s (180 u) 0.405488 t=3.80 s (228 u) 0.405488 identical to six decimals across 168 units t=4.20 s (252 u) 0.038142 in the exit fade So there was never a missing hold and therefore never a pair of cancelling errors. authored/timing.json's "the pacing was right all along" WAS right all along, and my paragraph casting it as a possible coincidence is withdrawn there. ⚠️ The failure was not a mis-measurement. I took a two-part split from someone else's instrument and assumed its boundary sat where my own model put it. Presents are not units, and "animating vs holding" in presents does not decompose the same way as "ramp vs hold" in declared units. That is a new failure shape for this corpus and it is worth the name. ✅ AND THE DWELL FIGURES ARE NOW POSITIVE EVIDENCE, not survivors. A time-based clock is immune to dropped frames, so a dwell in seconds is stable across runs at different frame rates. The port's own splash dwell across a 4.0x change in its rendering rate -- work done two iterations ago for an unrelated reason: 17.3 fps -> 4.28 s 19.6 -> 4.26 25.0 -> 4.27 69.4 -> 4.26 a 0.5 % spread, putting 255 units at 59.6-59.9 units/s every time. 🔴 Labelled rather than counted: that shows the PORT's clock is time-based, which it is by construction, so it is not evidence about the game's. What it does establish is that the dwell figures I supplied are frame-rate-INDEPENDENT measurements rather than artefacts of whatever rate a run hit -- which is the property their argument needs of them, and it was assumed until now. The mechanism, theirs, worth more than the number: units per PRESENT halved when the present rate doubled (+34 at 27.2 presents/s, +17 at 51.4) while units per SECOND did not move (54.4 vs 51.4). "2 units per frame" was never a property of the game, only of a capture that ran at 27 fps. 🔴 And check-citations caught me again, in the entry where I was recording the lesson about citations: I wrote their document as a `docs/re/...md` path that does not resolve here. The check does not care about the disclaimer next to it, which is correct. Named without a path now. Finding 3 is OPEN AGAIN with no surviving named cause. Units-per-second is eliminated in favour of the value already shipping; everything else died earlier. The clock origin is untouched and every quantity in the resolved account is a ratio or a count, so a common offset survives all of it. 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.