e59bb621e4
I have listed 'four unaudited multi-leg claims' as open for several iterations and said I expected the same inversion in them: a count standing in for an exclusion argument. Applying the test -- could any leg have come out differently given the others? loop_start_why holds. Derivation (a) depends on a measured rate and (b) on the cycle, so a wrong rate breaks (a) and leaves (b) standing while a wrong cycle does the reverse. They fail independently, which is what 'two derivations' was claiming. Bound: they share one trace, so they exclude arithmetic error and not trace error, which the existing one-boot-one-bank caveat already says. arithmetic_why holds. The corpus's 28.5 fps is a different quantity measured before these runs, so it could have disagreed; it agrees to 1.4%. Corroboration rather than restatement. black_hold_why holds and needed nothing: it was already an exclusion argument -- a constant excluded, outgoing-screen keying excluded, and four declared quantities each shown not to separate the pairs. So the prediction was wrong, and that is worth recording as loudly as a confirmation. Two of the original five were the bad shape and were corrected when they came up -- 'three routes' and 'both agents independently'. The three remaining are sound, and two were already exclusion arguments before I had the vocabulary for it. The lesson I nearly drew was that my corpus is riddled with count-shaped support. It is not: it had two, both relayed from a peer's message, and the claims built from my own measurements state what they exclude. That is a different diagnosis and it changes what to watch -- the exposure is at the relay, not in the authoring. Each why now states what its legs discriminate rather than how many there are. 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.