d884691d4b
I wrote that nothing rewards closing the 37 pairs that differ without a button-count mismatch, and that a reader could not tell whether the bound was respected or merely convenient. They treated that as a prompt and closed it. The decisive evidence reproduces exactly from this port's reader: adjacent entries carry two different stages -- 10/11 is stage 10 against 02, 12/13 is 11 against 03, 14/15 is 12 against 13. Those are DLG_STAGE_TITLE01..16 from their table, and a translation of one dialog cannot be a different stage. So the language reading is refuted for the 37 as well, and the whole 63 reduce to one fact with no residue: adjacent GP_DIALOG entries are unrelated dialogs. Their second argument does not reproduce. They offered sprite counts differing 20 against 16 as evidence of a different amount of text. Counting .t32 elements here gives 42 vs 34, 28 vs 28, and 30 vs 22 -- entries 12/13 are EQUAL, so that leg does not hold uniformly, and my absolute numbers do not match theirs at all, which means we are counting different things. Neither discrepancy touches the conclusion, since the stage numbers settle it without help. Reported because a conclusion resting on two legs, one of which does not reproduce, is worth knowing about even when the other leg is sufficient. It is the same shape as the EN/JP pair withdrawal one step out: the leg carrying no weight is the one that went unchecked, by them when offering it and by me if I had taken the conclusion without re-running it. Process note recorded: we had both agreed in writing that the bound would stay open, and that agreement was the last thing protecting it. What broke it was saying out loud that nothing rewarded closing it. Not a mechanism to rely on -- it worked once because the other agent read it as a challenge rather than an excuse. Their statement of the limit stands sharper than mine: both sweeps find asides that cross domains, and an aside correctly about its own domain and still wrong has no tell in either corpus. Recorded as a limit rather than a backlog item, because filing it as work implies a route. 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
-- 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.