# `REMAINING OB` — the mission's own objective counter, in RAM

**Status:** ✅ `CONFIRMED` for one Stage 02 run: a **big-endian u32** whose value
is exactly the HUD's `REMAINING OB`, verified across two transitions it was not
selected by. 🟡 the address itself is from one run — **cross-run stability is
untested**. ❔ what it counts, and whether objective-marked entities carry a flag.

## Why it matters

[`autopilot-memory-driven.md`](../autopilot-memory-driven.md) ranks this its
problem #2: a pilot that flies well but ignores the objective cannot finish a
mission. Its 300 s run took no damage, killed one fighter, and watched
`REMAINING OB` **rise** from 004 to 011 as waves spawned. Reading the counter is
what turns "shoot whatever is nearest" into "shoot what closes the mission".

## The find

Guest VA **`0xbdb59668`**, big-endian u32, in a Stage 02 run on the
[upstream baseline](../upstream-baseline.md).

| time | RAM `0xbdb59668` | HUD |
|---|---|---|
| selected on | 18 → 24 | 018 → 024 |
| t+40 s | 24 | 024 |
| t+75 s | **23** | **023** |
| t+110 s | **22** | **022** |
| t+145 s | 22 | 022 |
| t+180 s | 22 | 022 |

The two middle rows are the ones that matter: the candidate was filtered on the
18→24 transition, and it then tracked 24→23→22 on its own.

## Method, and the two traps in it

`tools/re-capture/ob_scan.py`. Scan one snapshot for the current value, then
filter that candidate set against **live** `/dev/shm/xenia_memory_*` at the next
distinct value. Only the first pass needs the 4.8 GB copy.

**🔴 Filter on a change, not a repeat.** The first attempt scanned at 19, filtered
at 19 again, then at 18 — and left **zero** survivors. The value moves between
the memory copy and the screenshot that reads it, so "still 19" is not reliable.
Scanning 18 and filtering on 24 gave exactly one candidate on the first try.

**🔴 Verify across a transition you did not select on.** An earlier differential
over 19→18 also gave exactly one candidate, `0xbc22e83c` — and it was **wrong**:
read live it held 26 while the HUD showed 017. It was an unrelated counter that
happened to step 19→18 in the same window. One matching transition is not
evidence; the same offset tracking a *later*, unselected change is.

## What is not settled

* 🟡 **Cross-run stability.** `0xbdb59668` is from a single run. The corpus's
  other runtime finds are re-scanned per run, so the durable result here is the
  **method**, not the number. Testing whether the address repeats costs one boot.
* ❔ **What it counts.** It rose 18 → 24 while waves spawned and fell as things
  died, so it is objective targets remaining, not kills. Whether every `OB`-badged
  entity is one of them, and whether that badge is a flag in the entity object, is
  the natural follow-on — and it is what the pilot actually needs to *choose*
  targets rather than merely know how many are left.
* ❔ Whether the same address holds for other stages.

## 🔴 2026-08-23 — cross-run stability: **REFUTED**

`0xbdb59668` does **not** repeat. A second Stage 02 run on the same baseline
(rebuilt per [`../dynamic-re-state-restore.md`](../dynamic-re-state-restore.md))
reads **0** at that address for the whole mission while the HUD counts up:

| HUD | RAM `0xbdb59668` |
|---|---|
| `004` (t+18 s, flight entry) | 0 |
| `008` | 0 |
| `012` (held for ~5 min) | 0 |

A **second, independent** run of the same mission repeats it: at `TIME 01:08.96`
with the HUD on `REMAINING OB 004`, the word is again **0**
([`../captures/stage02-inflight-run2-ob-address-zero.png`](../captures/stage02-inflight-run2-ob-address-zero.png)).

Read three times back-to-back at `004` — all zero — and `±64 bytes` around it are
zero too. The page is **not** a sparse hole (`SEEK_DATA` at the offset returns the
offset itself; the next hole is 5 MB later), so this is an allocated,
zero-filled word, not an unmapped read. The number was a **per-run artefact**, as
this file already suspected; the method is the durable part, and every future
session must re-scan.

**And re-finding it in the new run failed too — recorded because both failures
are instructive.** Two candidates were produced and both were killed by the
"verify across a transition you did not select on" rule:

* `0xbc2377dc` — held 12 at selection, then went 12 → 18 while the HUD stayed
  `012`, and was reading **3** two minutes later at HUD `012`.
* `0xbd295b04` — read 12 once, then 0, 21, 54, 46, 4 in the next 50 s. Noise.

🔴 **A correction to this file's own method note.** The trap is *not* that the
scan is slow: `ob_scan.py scan` over the live `/dev/shm` image takes **0.9 s**
(9 555 hits at value 12; the SEEK_DATA extent walk skips the sparse 4.6 GB). The
real trap is that **`REMAINING OB` climbs fast early in Stage 02** — `004` → `008`
→ `012` inside about four minutes as waves spawn — so a scan is only valid if the
HUD is confirmed to hold the same value **immediately before and after it**. The
earlier `4 ∩ 8` intersection here came back with no survivor for exactly that
reason: the value-8 scan was actually taken at 12.

**What blocked finishing it:** with the pilot in `RETIRE` (hull 340/1500) nothing
was killing objectives, and the counter sat at `012` for five minutes — no
transition to filter on. A run that intends to find this address needs a pilot
that is still *engaging*, which is the same constraint
[`../autopilot-memory-driven.md`](../autopilot-memory-driven.md) records.

**Unchanged and still open:** what the counter counts, and whether an `OB`-badged
entity carries a flag in its entity object. Nothing in this pass touched that.

## 🟡 2026-08-23 (later) — a third run, a HUD-clean scan, and one candidate that is very hard to explain away

With the launcher repaired the scan could finally be run the way the method
asks. **HUD confirmed `004` immediately before *and* after the scan** (0.9 s), so
the 39 596-entry candidate set is valid at that value; then filtered when the
HUD was confirmed at `012`.

| step | HUD | candidates |
|---|---|---|
| scan | `004` (confirmed both sides) | 39 596 |
| filter | `012` (confirmed) | **17** |
| later sample | — (see caveat) | 7 still 12 |

**The survivor of interest is `0xbdb49668`** — the run-1 address `0xbdb59668`
**minus exactly `0x10000`**, at the identical page offset `0x9668`.

**That is not a cheap coincidence, and it was checked rather than admired.** Of
all 39 596 words holding `4` at scan time, exactly **2** sit at page offset
`0x9668`; one of those two is in the 17, and it is this one. A survivor landing
there by chance is a ~5 × 10⁻⁵ event. The reading it suggests — the counter lives
at a fixed offset inside an allocation whose **base moves by whole 64 KB pages**
between runs — is a testable claim, not a story: a third scan should again land
on `…9668`.

**Why this is 🟡 and not ✅, stated plainly.** The corpus's own rule is that a
candidate is believable once it tracks a transition it was *not* selected on,
against the HUD. This one has not done that yet:

* The "later sample" that killed 10 of the 17 was taken **during the GAME OVER
  flash** — the escorted ACROPOLIS was lost at ~13 min — so the HUD counter was
  not on screen. The ten that *moved* are genuinely refuted; the seven that did
  not move are merely **unrefuted**, which is a much weaker thing, and the
  counter may simply be frozen once the mission ends.
* Between the filter and the mission end, `REMAINING OB` sat at `012` for about
  ten minutes: `pilot.py` spent the window in EVADE/RETIRE at hull 822/1500 and
  killed no objectives, so there was no transition to use.

**The one experiment that settles it:** a run where the pilot is still engaging,
scanning and filtering as above, then watching `0xbdb4·9668`-equivalent across a
HUD-verified change. The blocker is the pilot's survival, not the method — and
the same run would answer whether the page offset repeats, which is the stronger
result of the two.

## ✅ 2026-08-23 (third pass) — the counter is at `0xbdb59668` again, and the refutation above is *refined*, not reversed

Run 4, with the hunt automated end to end
([`ob_hunt.py`](../../tools/re-capture/ob_hunt.py) + the HUD reader), produced
**exactly one** surviving address:

```
scanned at 004: 35897 candidates       (HUD confirmed 004 on BOTH sides)
004 -> 008  [SELECTED ON]              7 survive
008 -> 012  [verification (unselected)] 1 survive
  va 0xbdb59668
```
([`captures/ob-hunt-stage02-run4.log`](../captures/ob-hunt-stage02-run4.log),
[`captures/ob-hunt-stage02-run4.json`](../captures/ob-hunt-stage02-run4.json))

That is the corpus's own standard met: one filter to select, a **second on a
transition it was not selected by** to verify. Then three live paired readings —
RAM read, screenshot, RAM read again — all `ram 12 -> 12 / hud 012`.

And it is **the same number as run 1**.

### What this does and does not overturn

| claim | status |
|---|---|
| the counter sits at `0xbdb59668` in *every* run | 🔴 **still refuted.** Runs 2 and 3 read a hard 0 there, on an allocated page, while the HUD counted 004 → 012. Nothing about run 4 makes those readings wrong. |
| the run-1 number was a meaningless artefact | 🔴 **withdrawn.** It recurs *exactly*: 2 of the 4 runs measured put the counter at `0xbdb59668`. |
| the address moves by whole 64 KB pages | 🟡 **consistent, twice.** Run 3's best candidate was `0xbdb49668` — one 64 KB page below — and both known-good addresses share the page offset **`0x9668`**. Run 3's candidate was only ever amber, so this rests on one confirmed address plus one plausible one. |

**So the practical rule is: try `0xbdb59668` first and *check it against the
HUD*, and re-scan when it reads 0.** A scan costs about five minutes now
(`ob_session.sh`), most of that being the boot.

### Why run 3 failed and run 4 did not

Nothing about the game changed; the *procedure* did. Run 3 filtered once, on
`004 → 012`, because the intermediate `008` step went by unnoticed between two
hand readings — and its 17 survivors then had no second transition to be tested
against, since `REMAINING OB` held at `012` for ten minutes while the pilot sat
in EVADE. Run 4 caught **both** early steps, five seconds apart from polling,
because reading the HUD stopped costing a human round trip. The evidence needed
was always in the first four minutes of the stage; the earlier runs were simply
not able to look often enough.

**Still open, and untouched:** ❔ what the counter counts, and whether an
`OB`-badged entity carries a flag in its entity object. That is the part the
autopilot actually needs, and knowing the address is only its precondition.

## ✅ 2026-08-24 — what is AROUND the counter: its own rendered digits

With the per-entity searches refuted at both word and bit level
(`../mission-freeze-and-ob-flag.md`), the next question was what object owns the
counter. It sits at `0xbdb59668`, inside the entity-heap window, so the answer is
readable directly: sample ±0x200 around it across one transition and keep the
words that move **with** it
([`ob_neighbourhood.py`](../../tools/re-capture/ob_neighbourhood.py),
[`captures/ob-counter-neighbourhood-stage02.json`](../captures/ob-counter-neighbourhood-stage02.json)).

Control first: over an 8-second interval while the counter sat still, **0 of the
256 words in the window changed**. So the window is quiet, and anything that
moves on the step is a real neighbour rather than noise.

On `4 → 8`, **nine** words moved — the counter and eight others, in two kinds:

| offset from the counter | before → after | what it is |
|---|---|---|
| `-0x12c`, `-0x11c`, `+0x64`, `+0x74` | `0x34000000 → 0x38000000` | **ASCII `'4'` → `'8'`**, NUL-padded |
| `-0x10c`, `-0xec`, `+0x84`, `+0xa4` | `0xbcad258c ↔ 0xbcad280c`, `0xbcad2d0c ↔ 0xbcad2f8c` | guest pointers into `0xbcad2xxx` |

Read live a moment later with the HUD showing `008`, all four character slots
hold `'8'`. So the neighbourhood is the **HUD's rendered text for this counter** —
the digit as a character in four places, each with a pointer that swaps as the
digit changes (a glyph or sprite record).

### 🟡 Which reframes what the address IS

This file has called `0xbdb59668` "the mission's own objective counter". The
evidence now says something narrower: it is **the HUD counter widget's value**,
sitting beside the characters it renders.

🔴 **But there is no separate mission-side copy that moves with it**, and that was
already measured: `ob_hunt.py` scans *all* of guest memory and requires a
candidate to match across two transitions, and it left **exactly one** address.
Whatever the mission script keeps internally either does not change on the same
step or is not a plain big-endian word.

**Next:** follow one of the `0xbcad2xxx` pointers — if they resolve to glyph or
sprite records, the widget is confirmed and the search for a mission-side count
moves to the objects those digits are *fed from*.