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) { for e in list_.iter().filter(|e| e.3 != *best) {
minority += 1; minority += 1;
rows.push(format!( rows.push(format!(
"{:<22} {name:<26} {:?} vs the other {n} containers' {:?}", "{:<22} {name:<26} v={:<6} {:?} vs the other {n} containers' {:?}",
e.0, e.3, best 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_`). named `rou_`/`e_rou_`).
So the headline number this file has been quoting — cross-container inconsistency So the headline number this file has been quoting — cross-container inconsistency
— is **dominated by composite bounding boxes**. Counting only real geometry, the — is **dominated by composite bounding boxes**. Checking the vertex count of
whole disc now has **one** disagreement: every minority decode settles it:
``` **All 89 are 24-vertex resources.** Not one is a real mesh.
Stage_S25.xpr e101_wep_01_l [779, 5769, 5769] vs the other 3 containers' [206, 545, 545]
```
That is the sharper metric to work against, and the concrete next target. (The That includes the single non-`rou_` name in the list, `e101_wep_01_l`
composite boxes are harmless — nothing draws them — but they should be excluded (`Stage_S25` `[779, 5769, 5769]` vs three containers' `[206, 545, 545]`) — 24
from any consistency figure quoted in future, and the ignored 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 `shared_resources_decode_identically_in_every_container` test measures the mixed
population, so its number is not comparable to this one.) population, so its number is not comparable to this one.)