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

re: the weapons are the control — sibling-default inheritance is unit-schema-specific, not engine-wide

Browse Source 
Four rules from 21 units invites the coincidence objection, so run the identical
sweep against the Weapon/Shell capture, which has COMPLETE coverage (126
records). It finds no sibling rule at all: the one 100%-agreement candidate has a
single distinct value and is really a constant default. Weapon defaults vary per
record exactly as unit defaults do, so "defaults are computed" is general while
"defaults come from a sibling field" is not.

Size_Y <- Size_X survives, and is now checked at the raw-token level rather than
through the sub-record merge: e105, f105 and f101 each declare Size_X/Size_Z/
Size_Radius and no Size_Y, and each reads back its own Size_X at runtime. The
two two-unit hypotheses are demoted to coincidence-not-excluded.

Also records a negative for planning: Stage 01, the only other reachable stage,
adds four uncaptured units that are variants of already-captured ones, so it
would re-measure rather than test the rules.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Claude (auto-RE)
2026-08-10 20:09:14 +00:00
parent 69b4a2e569
commit 530555de9f
1 changed files with 31 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

33
docs/re/structures/unit-struct-runtime.md
View File

@@ -320,7 +320,36 @@ disc, the rules recover **65 (unit, field) values in units that have never been
visited**: `Size_Y` in 21 of the 21 units that omit it, `Size_Radius` in 22 of 26,
`FCSRange` in 14 of 56, `DefencePoint` in 8 of 60.
### Cross-check against the weapons: this is NOT an engine-wide mechanism
The obvious worry is that four rules from 21 units are coincidence. The
`Weapon`/`Shell` capture is the control: **complete coverage, 126 records**, with
the same "defaulted on disc" classification. Running the identical sweep there
(confirmed rows, non-zero values, offsets required to differ) finds **no sibling
rule at all** — the single 100 %-agreement candidate (`Shell.Length ←
`Shell.Volume`, 5 records) has one distinct value, i.e. it is really the constant
`Length → 10` coinciding with `Volume = 10`. Weapon defaults vary per record just
as unit defaults do (10 of 14 `Weapon` fields, 16 of 17 `Shell` fields), so the
phenomenon is general; the *sibling* explanation is not.
So `Size_Y ← Size_X` is **specific to the unit schema** (plausibly the size block
defaulting its axes), not a property of IDXD default resolution. Two consequences:
the rule cannot be justified by appeal to a general mechanism, and the two
two-unit hypotheses (`FCSRange`, `DefencePoint`) lose the support they would have
borrowed from one — treat them as **coincidence-not-excluded** until a new stage
tests them.
`Size_Y ← Size_X` itself survives this scrutiny, and was re-checked at the raw
token level rather than through the sub-record merge: `UN_e105_ADAN_Cruiser`,
`UN_f105_TCAF_Cruiser` and `UN_f101_TCAF_Acropolis` each declare `Size_X`,
`Size_Z` and `Size_Radius` and **no `Size_Y` at all**, and each reads back its own
`Size_X` (600 / 700 / 400) at runtime.
**How to falsify:** the rules predict a specific number for units in stages not
yet captured. Load any new stage, snapshot, and compare — one disagreement kills
the rule. That test is also the cheapest use of the next mission that gets
loaded, whatever it is loaded for.
the rule. Note what is *not* a useful test: Stage 01, the only other reachable
stage, adds just four uncaptured units (`e010`/`e106` variants) whose predictions
are the same numbers their already-captured base variants gave, so it would
re-measure rather than test. A real test needs a stage with unfamiliar classes,
i.e. story progress — which is now the *only* thing story progress is needed for
here.