diff --git a/docs/re/BACKLOG.md b/docs/re/BACKLOG.md index 1e6719a..3c8587c 100644 --- a/docs/re/BACKLOG.md +++ b/docs/re/BACKLOG.md @@ -366,9 +366,16 @@ search cannot find a *schedule*. **16.5/s**, which is the emulator's known ~14–19 fps. 🟡 New leading explanation: **the runs were far too short in GAME time** — at ~55% of wall-clock, the longest 240 s run reached only t≈132, past the t=90/120 route - entries but nowhere near t=170/210/240. **Next: one long run** (~350 s probe) - watching for `0→n` near t≈163 s and 218 s wall. If still nothing, the - frame-rate explanation is refuted and event-gating returns as front-runner. + entries but nowhere near t=170/210/240. ✅🔴 **Long run done (2026-08-24)**: per-record tracking + works — watched ONE turret squadron fall **18→14→12→10→8→6→4→2** over seven + loss events while `deployed` held at 41. 🔴 **Still no arrival at 234 s wall + (≈129 game-s), past both t=90 and t=120**, so the "too short" explanation no + longer covers those (it still covers t=170/210/240; the run was cut at 240 s by + the turn timeout, not the planned 330 s). 🟡 **Sharper hypothesis:** the + squadron ended at **2, never 0** — no squadron has ever been eliminated in any + run, so the trigger may be *elimination*, not damage. **Next: run ~60–90 s + longer so that squadron reaches 0, and watch for `0→n`** — a direct test of the + event-gated model. ⚠️ The ~210 s title movie at boot is the binding constraint on observable game time per turn. Earlier framing: diff --git a/docs/re/mission-arrival-watch.md b/docs/re/mission-arrival-watch.md index 9883248..970adc2 100644 --- a/docs/re/mission-arrival-watch.md +++ b/docs/re/mission-arrival-watch.md @@ -68,3 +68,64 @@ cheapest thing to eliminate next. digit-recognition read of the clock region, or a memory scan for a counter that advances at a fixed rate, would settle whether phase time moves. If it does not, every arrival conclusion so far is measuring a stopped clock. + +--- + +# Long run: a squadron ground 18 → 2, still no arrival (2026-08-24) + +Status: ✅ per-record tracking works and resolves individual squadrons; 🔴 the +frame-rate "runs were too short" explanation is **weakened**; 🟡 a sharper +event-gating hypothesis now has a specific test. + +## ✅ The instrument works — one squadron watched down to 2 + +240 s with the hunting pilot, sampling every ~15 s: + +``` +t= 54s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 18 -> 14 +t= 89s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 14 -> 12 +t=106s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 12 -> 10 +t=124s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 10 -> 8 +t=139s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 8 -> 6 +t=172s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 6 -> 4 +t=209s loss UN_e007_ADAN_Turret 4 -> 2 +``` + +Seven loss events, **all on the same record**, tracking one squadron's strength +from 18 down to 2 while `deployed` held at 41 and the global craft count fell +300 → 284. This is the squadron-resolved signal the last several iterations were +building toward, and it behaves exactly as the link predicts. + +Losses come in steps of 2 (after an opening −4), which is unexplained and worth +noting rather than smoothing over. + +## 🔴 The frame-rate explanation is weakened + +[mission-clock-advances.md](mission-clock-advances.md) proposed that six empty +runs were simply too short: at ~16.5 fps against a 30 Hz tick, game time runs at +about 55 % of wall-clock, so t = 90 and t = 120 of the route timetable would land +at roughly **163 s and 218 s wall**. + +This run reached **234 s wall ≈ 129 game-seconds**, passing both. **No arrival +occurred at either point.** So "the runs were too short" no longer covers t = 90 +and t = 120, though it still covers t = 170, 210 and 240. + +The run was cut at 240 s rather than the planned 330 s — the turn's timeout fired +first. Stated plainly because it means t = 170 was never reached. + +## 🟡 A sharper hypothesis, with a clean test + +The squadron ended the run at **2 craft, not 0**. If arrivals are event-gated as +the user proposed, the trigger may be a squadron being *eliminated* rather than +merely damaged — and no squadron has ever reached zero in any run. That fits +every observation so far: seven kills produced no arrival because they never +finished anything off. + +**Test:** run long enough for that turret squadron to reach 0 and watch whether a +`0 → n` follows within the next samples. It fell 18 → 2 in 240 s, so roughly +another 60–90 s of the same pilot behaviour should finish it. This is now the +cheapest decisive experiment available, and it is a direct test of the +event-gated model rather than another null result. + +The binding constraint remains the ~210 s title movie at boot, which leaves only +about 350 s of observation per turn.