Files
Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re/BACKLOG.md
Claude (auto-RE) 5c3e3dfe47 re: making turrets targets does not save the escort — the effect is inside the noise
The Stage-02 outcome write-up ended by naming "turrets near the asset must
become targets" as the fix worth ~50% of the escort damage. That was an
inference from a co-presence attribution, not a measurement. Run it and it
does not hold.

Also corrects the run labelling: pilot.py gained the SYLPH_KILL_TURRETS gate
two minutes before mission02 started, so mission02 was already a treatment run,
not a second baseline. Only mission01 (0 of 3968 pilot frames targeting a
turret) is the baseline.

At a common t=428s: baseline 46.9% escort hull, treatment 44.5% and 53.0%. The
two runs of the same arm differ by more than either differs from the baseline,
and the escort still reaches zero at t~590-670s in all three. So the
transferable finding is the power limit: one 430s flight cannot resolve an
effect below ~9 percentage points, and every single-run pilot conclusion,
including this one's, is inside it.

What does reproduce: the assault is scripted (onset 166/167/166s), and the
e007/e010 damage split is 50/50 in all three arms including the one that never
fires at a turret -- so that attribution measures the wave script, not us.

Also records that the viewer's include_external hypothesis in BACKLOG is dead
(it defaults true and is threaded through unchanged).
2026-08-11 05:29:52 +00:00

84 lines
4.6 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# RE backlog
Open items that are *not* being worked right now. Each entry says what is wrong or
unknown, what evidence exists, and what the first step would be. Move an item into
`INDEX.md` (with a `structures/…md` or a parser + test) once it is actually settled.
---
## Capital ships assemble wrong in the viewer
**Reported:** 2026-07-30, by the user. **Status:** 🔎 **diagnosed 2026-08-10 — the
format layer is exonerated.** Runtime captures of three classes (`f105`, `e105`,
`e106`) at controlled range reproduce `assemble_ship` to ≤0.43 units in translation
and to 0.000 in rotation for every part that does not move; see
[`ship-placement-capture-generalisation.md`](ship-placement-capture-generalisation.md)
§4. So look at **the viewer**: first that it passes `include_external = true`
(`iso_loader.rs:4012` — with `false` an e106 loses its bridge and both nacelles,
5 parts instead of 11), then its own transform stack.
One real format-side bug was found on the way and is **fixed**: index-less parts
(`e105_brg`) never matched their `GN_Bridge_01` hardpoint, so 34 (stage, ship) entries
`e102`, `e104`, `e105` across Stages 0229 — assembled without a bridge. The other
apparent exception (`e105_eng_01` rotation) was an aggregation artefact and is 0.000.
The original report and its reasoning follow.
The reborn viewer builds capital ships from the split XBG7 parts via
`sylpheed-formats::ship::assemble_ship`, and they come out **wrong** — parts in the
wrong place / wrong orientation.
**Why this is a real finding and not a known limitation:** the RE write-up
[`ship-placement-runtime-capture.md`](ship-placement-runtime-capture.md) declares
static assembly ✅ **exact** as of 2026-07-26 — 9-channel joint tables
`[TX TY TZ RY RX RZ SX SY SZ]`, Euler `Ry·Rx·Rz`, with
`ship::tests::static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` asserting static == runtime
capture (T < 1.0, R < 0.02). So either the viewer is not using that path, or the
claim generalises worse than the test suggests.
**The likely gap:** that test is **one ship** — the `e106` destroyer, 8 parts plus
two nacelles, two turrets and the hull mirror. Nothing pins the other classes.
Rules that were derived from `e106` and could easily be `e106`-specific:
- the engine cluster rig mounted at `GN_Engine_01` (two mirrored nacelles + centre);
- "X-reflect the shared-geometry twin whose lateral offset opposes the geometry's
dominant side" — a heuristic, not a decoded flag;
- cross-id turret instancing (×2).
**First step (the oracle already exists):** re-run the runtime capture on a *different*
capital ship and diff static vs captured, exactly as `e106` was done — F10 in the
`capture-ship-placement` build of `xenia-canary-native` dumps the ship shader's
`c0..c2` WorldViewProjection rows per part; `WV_ref⁻¹ · WV_p` is the ship-space rigid
transform, which is ground truth. Pick a class whose rig differs from `e106`
(different engine count, a ship with no `sld`, a carrier). Then extend
`static_assembly_matches_runtime_capture` into a per-ship table so a regression in one
class cannot hide behind `e106` passing.
**Also worth ruling out first, cheaply:** that the viewer's own transform stack (scale,
handedness, node-instance recursion) is not re-breaking a correct assembly — compare
the viewer's placement against `assemble_ship`'s output directly before blaming the
format layer.
---
## Viewer: `include_external` is already on — that hypothesis is dead
**Checked 2026-08-11.** The item above names "first that it passes
`include_external = true` (`iso_loader.rs:4012`)" as the cheap first step. It
does: `ShipBrowser::show_external` defaults to `true`
(`iso_loader.rs:643`), the checkbox reads it (`ui.rs:1593`) and it is threaded
through `RequestShipRender``build_ship_model``assemble_ship` unchanged
(`ui.rs:1689`, `iso_loader.rs:4012`). So a ship rendered by the viewer is the
full external assembly, not the bare hull.
The viewer also does not have a transform stack of its own to blame: it bakes
`ScenePart::apply` straight into the vertices and rotates normals by the same
`p.m` (`iso_loader.rs:4030-4062`), so its placement is `assemble_ship`'s output
by construction. What remains unexcluded, in order of cheapness: the mirror
handling (`det < 0` reverses triangle winding only — a reflected part keeps its
reflected geometry), `Xbg7Model::models_named` resolving the wrong sub-model when
a resource name repeats, and the exhaust cones. **Next step is a visual**: the
diagnosis has run out of things it can settle by reading, so the viewer needs to
be run against a known-good class (`e106`) and its render compared with
`ship_render`'s.