60285a6ead
The case for reading +36 as "the time the NEXT pose is reached" rested on one element's fade-out shape, then on one element's hold duration. Both splash halves supply more, and they agree. element screen observed hold as decoded shifted palogo_gamearts developer splash 83 f 8 f 80 f palogo_seta developer splash 83 f 6 f 80 f palogo_sqex publisher splash >=77 f * 6 f 102 f * the capture opens mid-hold at frame 1, so 77 is a floor. The readings predict opposite structures. For palogo_gamearts, as decoded: hold 8f, in 80f, hold 2f, out 6f, out 2f -- an eighty-frame FADE-IN and a two-frame hold. Shifted: in 8f, hold 80f, out 2f, out 6f, out 2f. The capture shows an 83-frame hold and no fade-in at all. The elements that cannot discriminate are not contradicted: palogo_gamearts_eff observed in 7f / hold 7f / out 8f, and both readings give 8f phases -- with four blocks the shift only relabels which phase is which. So the glows, which is where Q1's linear law was measured, say nothing either way rather than arguing against. The decoder's default is still unchanged, and the reason is now articulated rather than assumed. The single thing opposing the shift is rest() on ptlogo_eff3, where the shifted reading makes the longest-dwell fallback return the bloom's 200% peak. That fallback is unsound whenever it runs -- it returns an endpoint of a movement, neither of which is held -- and checked: the shift does not fix it either. So the objection was never evidence about the times. Timing had three discriminating measurements; pose selection had a heuristic guessing. For the port: animation timing should use the shift; static composites are unaffected and the five screens' correlations stand. Classified measured, not decoded -- three elements in one screen family, not a disc-wide check.