The three orders the derived rule was built from all live in GP_TITLE.pak, so
they cannot confirm it - the rule was fitted to them. These two are from
GP_SAVE_LOAD.pak, read off the running game now that the Canary threading fix
makes the main menu dependable.
The 9-element slot-list header composites EXACTLY as the sort predicts, on all 6
instances of it, and nothing about this screen was fed into the rule:
measured 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
derived 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
including TWO tied groups (0xb102 x2 and 0xb210 x5) that both come out in
declaration order, and the unkeyed pfeff00.prm fade quad last.
The 13-element save/load frame differs in exactly the two open questions and no
new ones: two unkeyed pfbase.tbm backgrounds paint FIRST where the sort puts the
keyless last - the splash's palogo_eff0.prm behaviour in a different file type,
so implied_layer_key now covers it - and the 0xb100 group of four paints
10,11,8,12 where declaration order is 8,10,11,12.
That second point is a SECOND screen with a mis-ordered tie, which is what the
question needed, and it immediately kills a candidate: 10 and 11 are kind=0x2002
while 8 and 12 are 0x0000, so "descending kind then declaration index"
reproduces 10,11,8,12 exactly - and then fails both title groups, where every
element of 0x8083 is kind 0 and where 0x80a0 would predict 2,3,4,5,0,1,7 against
a measured 0,2,4,7,1,3,5. Seven candidates refuted now.
16 disc tests green.
673 KiB
1279x675px
673 KiB
1279x675px