From 1d8b783d26c9eb4fedecf27fc98cc6bb3f5aedd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Claude (auto-RE)" Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 18:11:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] re: all 89 remaining disagreements are 24-vertex boxes -- no real mesh disagrees 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) --- .../examples/consensus_check.rs | 4 +-- docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md | 27 +++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/crates/sylpheed-formats/examples/consensus_check.rs b/crates/sylpheed-formats/examples/consensus_check.rs index eee8d67..25089c5 100644 --- a/crates/sylpheed-formats/examples/consensus_check.rs +++ b/crates/sylpheed-formats/examples/consensus_check.rs @@ -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 )); } } diff --git a/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md b/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md index b61e8c2..b3c2589 100644 --- a/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md +++ b/docs/re/structures/xbg7-mesh.md @@ -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.)