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

re: test the OB hypothesis's weak point statically -- it holds, but a premise was wrong

Browse Source 
Decoded stage\UnitGroup_S02.tbl with the existing unitgroup.py (pure static, no
emulator; 111 squadrons, roster self-check 111/111).

The "four per squadron" premise was 16/4, a mean, and I flagged that 5/5/3/3 would
make the step-of-four a coincidence.  Measured: Stage 02 has NINE e010_Attacker_S
squadrons totalling 45 members, sized 4,4,4,6,4,6,4,9,4 -- not uniform across the
stage, but SIX of the nine hold exactly 4, and phase 1's share is independently
recorded as 4 groups / 16 craft = 4 x 4.  So the phase-1 squadrons are the n=4
ones and the step-of-four is a real size, not an averaging artifact.

But a premise of the note is refuted: ADN110/111/112, which I cited as the polled
squadrons arriving at t=170, are UN_e007_ADAN_Turret with n=9 -- TURRET squadrons,
not attackers.  That arrival evidence is about turrets and is withdrawn from the
argument.

Records the tension it exposes: mission-wave-arrivals.md calls ADN110/111/112 the
squadrons the phase-1 clear condition polls, while mission-objectives-text.md has
the phase-1 objective as the marked attackers.  Unresolved.
This commit is contained in:
Sylpheed RE agent
2026-08-27 00:55:27 +00:00
parent f041de8636
commit 74314b457d
1 changed files with 46 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

46
docs/re/ob-counts-marked-attackers.md
View File

@@ -60,6 +60,52 @@ and the single decrement came from the single run that killed attackers.
deployed) → 2 (active), so the prediction is `counter == 4 × (active e010
squadrons) − (marked attackers killed)`.
## ✅ The weak point, tested statically — and it holds for phase 1
The caveat below said "four per squadron" was `16 / 4`, a **mean**, and that
5/5/3/3 would make the step-of-four a coincidence. That is now measured, from the
disc, with no emulator: `tools/re-capture/unitgroup.py S02` decodes
`stage\UnitGroup_S02.tbl` (111 squadrons, 116 members, roster self-check
111/111).
Every `UN_e010_ADAN_Attacker_S` squadron in Stage 02:
| squadron | n | | squadron | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| `ADN204` | **4** | | `ADN209` | 6 |
| `ADN206` | **4** | | `ADS151` | **4** |
| `ADT102` | **4** | | `ADS251` | 9 |
| `ADN208` | 6 | | `ADT107` | **4** |
| `ADT113` | **4** | | | |
**9 groups, 45 members** — so the sizes are *not* uniform across the stage. But
**six of the nine hold exactly 4**, and phase 1's share is independently recorded
as **4 groups / 16 craft** — which is `4 × 4` exactly. So the phase-1 squadrons
are the `n = 4` ones, and the step-of-four is a real per-squadron size rather
than an artifact of averaging. 🟡 upgraded on that specific point.
## ❌ A premise of this note was WRONG — ADN110/111/112 are TURRETS
This note said the polled squadrons ADN110, ADN111 and ADN112 arrive at t=170 and
implied they are the marked attackers. The roster says otherwise:
```
ADN110 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9
ADN111 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9
ADN112 unit=UN_e007_ADAN_Turret n=9
```
All three are **turret** squadrons of **nine**. So the arrival-time evidence I
quoted is about turrets, not about the objective craft, and it does **not**
support this reading. It has to be withdrawn from the argument.
❔ **And it leaves a genuine tension in the corpus**, worth stating rather than
smoothing: [`mission-wave-arrivals.md`](mission-wave-arrivals.md) calls
ADN110/111/112 "the three squadrons the phase-1 clear condition polls", while
[`mission-objectives-text.md`](mission-objectives-text.md) has the phase-1
objective as the *marked attackers*. Those cannot both be the clear condition
unless the poll covers more than the objective. Unresolved here.
## ❌ What this is NOT
* Not measured. No run was made for this note; every number in it is quoted from