fabi/Syplheed-Reborn
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

re: all 89 remaining disagreements are 24-vertex boxes -- no real mesh disagrees

Browse Source 
Checking the vertex count of every minority decode: all 89 are 24-vertex
resources, including e101_wep_01_l, which last commit called the one real
geometry disagreement -- it is a 24-vert box too. So after this thread's fixes no
real mesh on the disc decodes differently in different containers; what remains
is structurally identical bounding boxes swapping identities, which needs an
ordering rule rather than a validity gate. Monotone anchoring was refuted before
but under a decoder with other defects, and is now cheap to judge: 89 -> 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Claude (auto-RE)
2026-08-12 18:11:20 +00:00
parent cdaeac8e1b
commit 1d8b783d26
2 changed files with 21 additions and 10 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
crates/sylpheed-formats/examples/consensus_check.rs
View File

@@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ fn main() {
for e in list_.iter().filter(|e| e.3 != *best) {
minority += 1;
rows.push(format!(
"{:<22} {name:<26} {:?} vs the other {n} containers' {:?}",
e.0, e.3, best
"{:<22} {name:<26} v={:<6} {:?} vs the other {n} containers' {:?}",
e.0, e.1, e.3, best
));
}
}

27
docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md
View File

@@ -1114,16 +1114,27 @@ the 6 209 decoded resources have scene nodes**, i.e. are composites (478 are
named `rou_`/`e_rou_`).
So the headline number this file has been quoting — cross-container inconsistency
— is **dominated by composite bounding boxes**. Counting only real geometry, the
whole disc now has **one** disagreement:
— is **dominated by composite bounding boxes**. Checking the vertex count of
every minority decode settles it:
```
Stage_S25.xpr e101_wep_01_l [779, 5769, 5769] vs the other 3 containers' [206, 545, 545]
```
**All 89 are 24-vertex resources.** Not one is a real mesh.
That is the sharper metric to work against, and the concrete next target. (The
composite boxes are harmless — nothing draws them — but they should be excluded
from any consistency figure quoted in future, and the ignored
That includes the single non-`rou_` name in the list, `e101_wep_01_l`
(`Stage_S25` `[779, 5769, 5769]` vs three containers' `[206, 545, 545]`) — 24
vertices, 36 indices, the same box signature, so it belongs to the same class
rather than being the "one real disagreement" first written here.
**After the fixes in this file, no real mesh on the disc decodes differently in
different containers.** What remains is 24-vertex boxes swapping identities: many
of them exist, they are structurally identical, and distinct assignment gives each
a *distinct* block without pinning *which* block belongs to which name. Fixing
that needs an ordering rule (descriptor order ↔ ascending offset). Monotone
anchoring was refuted once before, but that was measured under a decoder with
several other defects, so it is worth re-testing — and it is now cheap to judge,
because the target is a single number: 89 → 0.
(The boxes are harmless in themselves — nothing draws them. But no consistency
figure should be quoted without saying whether it counts them; the ignored
`shared_resources_decode_identically_in_every_container` test measures the mixed
population, so its number is not comparable to this one.)