docs: one page saying how good the five screens actually are

The answers for the port's five screens were spread across a dozen
documents and none of them said how good the result IS. Measured:

  screen              build  drawn   corr vs capture  alignment
  title                 4    15/24      +0.9500       dy=0 dx=0
  main menu             5    11/16      +0.9460       dy=0 dx=0
  EXTRAS                6    13/18      +0.9440       dy=0 dx=0
  publisher splash     10     2/3       +0.9600       dy=0 dx=0
  developer splash     11     6/7       +0.9643       dy=0 dx=0

Every one aligns at exactly zero offset over a +/-2 px search in both
axes, so placement and scale are right and the residual is tone and
detail rather than geometry.

The drawn/total counts are not slack. Each undrawn element has a reason
already documented: kind & 0x4 ghost instances (4 on the title), .prm
primitives off by default (2 per menu, 1 per splash), loop* animations
off by default and off-screen at rest (2 per menu screen), and the 8AX
name mismatch (1 per menu screen) whose art reaches the screen anyway via
ptbase. 4+2+2+1 = 9, 2+2+1 = 5, 1. Nothing unexplained.

The residual is ranked for a consumer: tone first (gamma 1.34-1.49, the
game's own display ramp), then 8AX resolution, then one drawable
paint-order tie on EXTRAS alone, then rotation-decoded-but-not-rendered
which does not affect these five at rest.

Reach stated: these are static composites at the resting pose against
single frames, so nothing here speaks to animation, and a whole-frame
correlation is a sanity figure rather than a per-element check.

docs/port/HANDOFF.md

@@ -314,6 +314,20 @@ authored version can be deleted.
   on your five screens.
   [`structures/ui-paint-order-derived-check.md`](../re/structures/ui-paint-order-derived-check.md)
 
+* ✅ **How good are the five screens, actually?** One page with the numbers:
+  [`five-screens-acceptance.md`](../re/five-screens-acceptance.md). Rendered and
+  correlated against the live captures — title **0.9500**, main menu **0.9460**,
+  `EXTRAS` **0.9440**, publisher splash **0.9600**, developer splash **0.9643**,
+  and every one aligns at **exactly dy=0 dx=0** over a ±2 px search, so placement
+  and scale are right and the residual is tone and detail rather than geometry.
+  Every undrawn element is accounted for (ghost instances, `.prm` primitives,
+  `loop*` animations, and the `8AX` name mismatch whose art is on screen anyway) —
+  the counts add up exactly, with nothing unexplained. The residual, ranked: tone
+  (γ≈1.4, the game's own ramp), `8AX` resolution, one `EXTRAS` paint-order tie,
+  and rotation-not-rendered which does not affect these five at rest.
+  ⚠️ Reach: static composites at rest against single frames — this says nothing
+  about animation.
+
 * **Menu order is geometric.** Buttons sorted top-to-bottom by resting Y. This is
   ✅ correct for a vertical menu and is **not** a decoded neighbour graph — the
   disc's real navigation structure is unknown, and `opt ` is *not* a focus link