77, 78, 81, 82 and 135 were unnamed. The engine has five contiguous strings
-- MISSION_START_PRT at 0x820A83F0, then _END_, _UPDATE_, _FAILED_,
_RESTART_ -- and five sequential ScriptPhase fields at +388/+392/+396/+400/
+404, stored in ascending order by one constructor region. Five names, five
fields, five unnamed built-ins.
Which is which is decided by call-site structure, measured over all 28
stages, and it is exact:
39 MARK_LAST_PHASE 89 sites -> 82 in 89/89
82 banner_mission_failed <- 39 in 89/89, then wait_s 89/89
40 mark_not_last 50 sites -> 78 (27) + 81 (17) + END_PHASE (6) = 50
78 banner_mission_complete <- 40 in 27/27
81 banner_objective_update <- 40 in 17/17
77 banner_mission_start 22 sites in 22 stages, one per stage,
after play_bgm
135 banner_mission_restart 16 sites, after play_bgm, phase >= 2
39 -> 82 is a perfect pairing and 40's sites partition exactly three ways.
Stated as inferred rather than read: the string-to-field pairing itself comes
from both sequences ascending in the same order; my operand tracker did not
catch the string loads in that constructor. The ROLES above do not depend on
it.
76 is left unnamed on purpose. It has 38 sites = 22 + 16, exactly 77's count
plus 135's, and precedes them; its body sets [phase+332] = 1 and nothing in
the image reads that field. Suggestive arithmetic is not a name.
Flagged as a consequence: MARK_LAST_PHASE is followed by the FAILED banner in
89 of 89 sites and mark_not_last by END or UPDATE. So [phase+300] = 2 reads
less like "this is the last phase" than "end the mission now,
unsuccessfully" -- the existing names for that pair may be mis-framing it.
Artifact regenerated: docs/re/data/isl-stage02.txt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PMRJjbxLqZtsb5Vb7KunPE
cb830e233e