Two follow-ups, both negative, both worth recording so the next attempt does not
repeat them.
The descriptor cannot replace the candidate scan. If entry.data_offset located
the geometry, anchoring would be direct addressing. Across e106's resources in
Stage_S01, anchored_vb - data_offset ranges from 1199052 to 4173988 with no
constant or stride; data_offset locates the DESCRIPTOR and none of the first six
descriptor words tracks the vertex pool.
And yesterday's "1241 of 1242 pairs identical in every container, so sharing is
legitimate reuse" is weaker than it read. A SYSTEMATIC error is invisible to a
consistency test, because it is consistent. The same dump shows e106_bdy_02 and
e106_bdy_03_m anchoring to the identical offset (1505556), and e106_bdy_01_l with
e106_brg_01_m (4251208) -- a hull half and a different body's medium LOD, a hull
half and a bridge LOD. Different parts; one of each pair is wrong.
Honest position: sharing is common (19%), some is certainly legitimate (a
mirrored twin pair genuinely shares one geometry) and some certainly is not, and
cross-container consistency cannot separate them. What can: comparing a shared
pair against a runtime capture.
Instrumentation reverted; only docs land here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude (auto-RE)
6d96446735