re: the +184 writer is blocked - and xrefs.ind_call is a CROSS PRODUCT, not a call graph
Chasing what supplies the EX_ mode word. Two routes, both measured to have no power, plus one structural fact that did come out. The offset route is dead. stw ..., 184(rN) occurs 301 times in the image, lwz from +184 occurs 351 times, and 115 functions touch both +144 and +184. +184 is an ordinary small offset shared by many unrelated classes - the same shape the corpus already recorded as failing three times. Nothing narrows to a writer. The bigger result is an instrument refutation with corpus-wide reach. Asking xrefs for the callers of the two screens returns 633 sources for EACH, and the two lists are IDENTICAL, which cannot be right. Measuring the relation itself: ind_call rows 1827297 distinct targets 1710 distinct sources 6992 targets with EXACTLY 633 sources 236 236 different functions sharing an identical source count is the signature of an unresolved-indirect-call cross product, not of a call graph. Any reading that treats an ind_call edge as "X calls Y" is void, here and anywhere else in the corpus it may have been used. The control shows the other kinds are sound: sub_82286BC8 has exactly one caller, kind call. And both EX_ screens have ZERO non-ind_call edges - they are reached only through function pointers, which is why the direct graph is empty for them. What did come out: scanning the entries of all 1150 catalogued vtables in the flat .pe, both EX_ screens are slot 1 of their own class - sub_822814D8 in ANON_Class_271D5F25 and sub_8227A3A0 in ANON_Class_CAA8AD62 - while sub_82286BC8 is in no catalogued vtable at all. So the 2/0/0/1 partition from the previous commit reflects a structural difference rather than a coincidence: the two screens that select on the mode word are vtable methods of their own classes and the one that does not select is not a vtable method. Still not settled: what writes +184. Both the offset sweep and the call graph are exhausted for it. A route with actual power would be the RTTI behind those two anonymous classes, or a runtime watch on the field - not another static offset search. All seventeen artefacts byte-identical.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -6912,3 +6912,32 @@ kind from `CHALLENGE` in the game's own vocabulary.
|
||||
⚠️ **Boundary**: `EXTRA = 3` is established at `+144` of the stage-loader class;
|
||||
the word tested here is at `+184` of `[obj+4]`. Same constant, two offsets —
|
||||
**that they are the same field is not shown**.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 🔴❌ 2026-08-28 — the `+184` writer is blocked; and `xrefs.ind_call` is a CROSS PRODUCT
|
||||
|
||||
Item (a). Two routes to "what supplies the `EX_` mode word", both measured to
|
||||
have no power.
|
||||
|
||||
❌ **Offset route dead**: `stw …,184(rN)` occurs **301×**, `lwz` from `+184`
|
||||
**351×**, and **115 functions touch both `+144` and `+184`**. `+184` is an
|
||||
ordinary small offset — the same trap the corpus already paid for three times.
|
||||
|
||||
❌❌ **`xrefs.ind_call` IS A CROSS PRODUCT — NEVER READ IT AS "X CALLS Y".**
|
||||
Callers of the two screens come back as **633 sources each, identical lists**.
|
||||
The relation itself: **1 827 297 `ind_call` rows** over **1 710 targets** ×
|
||||
**6 992 sources**, and **236 targets have *exactly* 633 sources**. That is an
|
||||
unresolved-indirect-call cross product. ⚠️ Any past or future reading that treats
|
||||
an `ind_call` edge as a real caller is void. Control: `sub_82286BC8` has exactly
|
||||
**1** caller of kind `call`, so the direct kinds are sound; both `EX_` screens
|
||||
have **0** non-`ind_call` edges.
|
||||
|
||||
✅ **What did come out**: scanning the 1 150 vtables' entries in the flat `.pe`,
|
||||
**both `EX_` screens are slot 1 of their own class** — `sub_822814D8` in
|
||||
`ANON_Class_271D5F25`, `sub_8227A3A0` in `ANON_Class_CAA8AD62` — while
|
||||
`sub_82286BC8` is in no catalogued vtable at all. The 2/0/0/1 partition reflects
|
||||
a structural difference, not a coincidence.
|
||||
|
||||
🔴 **Blocked**: the `+184` writer. Next route with power = the RTTI behind those
|
||||
two anonymous classes, or a runtime watch — **not** another static offset search.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -131,3 +131,56 @@ at **`+144`** of the stage-loader class, while the word tested here is at
|
||||
**`+184`** of `[object + 4]`. Same constant, same `EX`/`EXTRA` naming, two
|
||||
different offsets in what may be two different objects — **that the two fields
|
||||
are the same field is not shown**, only that both compare a mode word against 3.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🔴 Who writes `+184` — blocked, by two independent instrument failures
|
||||
|
||||
The next question after the selector is what *supplies* the mode. Two routes
|
||||
were tried and both are measured to have no power here.
|
||||
|
||||
**The offset route has no power.** `stw …, 184(rN)` occurs **301 times** in the
|
||||
image, `lwz` from `+184` **351 times**, and **115 functions touch both `+144`
|
||||
and `+184`**. `+184` is an ordinary small offset shared by many unrelated
|
||||
classes — the same shape that the corpus already recorded as failing three
|
||||
times. Nothing here narrows to a writer.
|
||||
|
||||
**❌ The `xrefs` `ind_call` edges are a cross product — do not use them as
|
||||
callers.** Asking for the callers of the two screens returns **633 sources for
|
||||
each, and the two lists are identical**, which cannot be right. Measuring the
|
||||
relation itself:
|
||||
|
||||
| | |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| `ind_call` rows | **1 827 297** |
|
||||
| distinct targets | 1 710 |
|
||||
| distinct sources | 6 992 |
|
||||
| **targets with *exactly* 633 sources** | **236** |
|
||||
|
||||
236 different functions sharing the identical source count is the signature of
|
||||
an unresolved-indirect-call cross product, not of a call graph. ⚠️ **Any reading
|
||||
that treats an `ind_call` edge as "X calls Y" is void**, here and elsewhere in
|
||||
the corpus.
|
||||
|
||||
⚠️ The control shows the *other* kinds are fine: `sub_82286BC8` has exactly
|
||||
**one** caller, kind `call`. And both `EX_` screens have **zero** non-`ind_call`
|
||||
edges — they are reached only through function pointers, which is why the direct
|
||||
graph is empty for them.
|
||||
|
||||
### ✅ What did come out: both `EX_` screens are slot 1 of their own class
|
||||
|
||||
Scanning the 1 150 catalogued vtables' entries in the flat `.pe`:
|
||||
|
||||
| function | vtable | slot |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| `sub_822814D8` (debriefing) | `ANON_Class_271D5F25` | **1** |
|
||||
| `sub_8227A3A0` (career) | `ANON_Class_CAA8AD62` | **1** |
|
||||
| `sub_82286BC8` (save) | *in no catalogued vtable* | — |
|
||||
|
||||
So each `EX_`-selecting screen is a class whose **slot-1 virtual** is its
|
||||
key-list builder, and the third — which selects nothing — is not a vtable method
|
||||
at all. That is consistent with the 2 / 0 / 0 / 1 partition above arriving from a
|
||||
structural difference rather than a coincidence.
|
||||
|
||||
🔴 **Still not settled: what writes `+184`.** Both the offset sweep and the call
|
||||
graph are exhausted for it. A route with actual power would be the RTTI class
|
||||
behind `ANON_Class_271D5F25` / `_CAA8AD62`, or a runtime watch on the field —
|
||||
not another static offset search.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user