re(ui): replicate the keyframe-time shift -- three elements, two screens

The case for reading +36 as "the time the NEXT pose is reached" rested on
one element's fade-out shape, then on one element's hold duration. Both
splash halves supply more, and they agree.

  element            screen              observed hold  as decoded  shifted
  palogo_gamearts    developer splash        83 f          8 f       80 f
  palogo_seta        developer splash        83 f          6 f       80 f
  palogo_sqex        publisher splash       >=77 f *       6 f      102 f

  * the capture opens mid-hold at frame 1, so 77 is a floor.

The readings predict opposite structures. For palogo_gamearts, as decoded:
hold 8f, in 80f, hold 2f, out 6f, out 2f -- an eighty-frame FADE-IN and a
two-frame hold. Shifted: in 8f, hold 80f, out 2f, out 6f, out 2f. The
capture shows an 83-frame hold and no fade-in at all.

The elements that cannot discriminate are not contradicted:
palogo_gamearts_eff observed in 7f / hold 7f / out 8f, and both readings
give 8f phases -- with four blocks the shift only relabels which phase is
which. So the glows, which is where Q1's linear law was measured, say
nothing either way rather than arguing against.

The decoder's default is still unchanged, and the reason is now
articulated rather than assumed. The single thing opposing the shift is
rest() on ptlogo_eff3, where the shifted reading makes the longest-dwell
fallback return the bloom's 200% peak. That fallback is unsound whenever
it runs -- it returns an endpoint of a movement, neither of which is held
-- and checked: the shift does not fix it either. So the objection was
never evidence about the times. Timing had three discriminating
measurements; pose selection had a heuristic guessing.

For the port: animation timing should use the shift; static composites are
unaffected and the five screens' correlations stand. Classified measured,
not decoded -- three elements in one screen family, not a disc-wide check.

docs/re/METHOD.md

@@ -742,3 +742,11 @@ agent's loop prompt, i.e. nowhere durable. See [`README.md`](README.md) for the
   inflated by my own duplicate runs. A slow thing observed under contention looks
   like a stuck thing, and the correction matters: an hour-scale gate can be run
   deliberately, a hung one cannot be run at all.
+* **Separate the question with evidence from the question tangled with it.** The
+  keyframe-time reading was held back for several iterations by one objection:
+  adopting it changes `rest()` on a single element. But `rest()` reaches the times
+  only through a fallback that is unsound whenever it runs, and the shift does not
+  fix that fallback either — so the objection was never about the times. Timing
+  had three discriminating measurements; pose-selection had a heuristic guessing.
+  When a conclusion is blocked, check whether the blocker is actually evidence
+  about the same thing.