Syplheed-Reborn/docs/re/mission-phase-membership.md

Which squadrons fly in which phase — and the ~300 craft are ~150

Status: ✅ the phase map, read out of Route_S<NN>.tbl record names; ✅ the 387-vs-300 gap explained — the live-craft probe double-counts; ❔ what advances a phase (nothing static encodes it).

✅ The phase map is in the route names

stage\Route_S02.tbl has 121 records: 120 routes + 1 roster, and every route name matches Route_<squadron>_p<N><kind> — 120/120:

Route_ADN101_p1F   Route_TCN003_p2S   Route_ADS351_p3M

The phase lives in the name and nowhere else; a route record's only named field is FrameCount. So the squadron→phase mapping was on the disc all along, one string-parse away, in a table that was being read for fly-in geometry.

108 of 111 S02 squadrons match a route name exactly. The three that do not — TCN207, TCN208, TCS252 — are typos in the route table (Route_TCT207_p2S, Route_TCT208_p2S, Route_TCN252_p2F), plus two orphan routes naming no squadron (Route_ADS352_p3F, Route_kichi_p3F). All three near-misses are phase 2, so phase 1 is unaffected.

Phase partition of Stage 02 (Σn = 387 overall):

phase set	squadrons	Σn
{1}	33	142
{2}	31	110
{3}	39	118
{1,3}	2	5
{2,3}	1	1
{1,2,3}	2	4
none (the 3 typos)	3	7
per phase	37 / 34 / 44	151 / 115 / 128

✅ The 387-vs-~300 gap: the probe counts each craft TWICE

roster-to-craft-link records four failed attempts to explain how the roster becomes "~300 live craft". The premise was wrong — there were never 300 craft.

Phase 1's member-level n multiset against the measured craft-per-record fan-in (41 records, 300 craft):

phase-1 members (42):   n=1 x25   n=2 x1   n=4 x4   n=9 x12    sum 151
observed craft/record:    2 x24     4 x1     8 x4    18 x12    sum 300
observed / 2:             1 x24     2 x1     4 x4     9 x12    sum 150

Every bucket matches shape for shape. The only discrepancy is 24 vs 25 records at the bottom — the already-documented 41-vs-42 off-by-one, and it is an n=1 record. So 300 = 2 × (151 − 1). Unit type corroborates independently: the 12 records showing 18 craft are all UN_e007_ADAN_Turret, and phase 1 has exactly 12 turret squadrons at n=9.

✅ The factor of 2 is an artifact of the probe, not real units

Two static arguments, and the second is decisive because it is a hard capacity bound:

1. Named pilots. Phase 1's eight f001 members all have n=1 and carry distinct identities — Character_Player_Test, ELLEN, RAYMOND, GENE, SANDRA, BILLY, ANTONIUS, CARL. A 2× reading means 16 Delta Sabers for 8 named people.

2. Formation slots. Squadrons cannot exceed their formation's FrameCount (see unit-group-table):

   reading	violations among the 37 phase-1 squadrons
   Σn ≤ FrameCount (1×)	0
   2·Σn ≤ FrameCount (2×)	20

   Including 16 squadrons on Formation_1_only — one slot, n=1 — which a 2× reading would have placing two craft in a one-slot formation.

So the true phase-1 population is ~150, and the 296 / 298 / 300 spread is 2 × a 148 / 149 / 150 population after kills. That all three measurements are even is a further tell a 1:1 count would not produce half the time.

Best explanation of the missing 42nd record: the player's own tuple (TCN001 member 0, Character_Player_Test), which plausibly is not in the AI-craft pool the +0x130 def-pointer scan walks. That makes the chain exact: 300 = 2 × (151 − 1 player).

⚠️ This is a static argument about a dynamic measurement. It says the probe's number cannot mean what it was taken to mean; it does not identify what the probe is double-counting. That needs a run — the counting rule in the craft scan is the place to look, not the game.

🔴 Refuted along the way

• UnitGroup carries no phase, spawn time or arrival delay. The raw field dump accounts for every slot: 1019 = sum(Count)·4 + 5·111, with positional entries tagged by sequential index (0x0,0x1,0x2,…), not hashes. There is no spare field.
• DisableInterval cannot explain Stage 02 — it is No for all 111 squadrons. Corpus-wide its 31 Yes records sit in just two stages, S04 (5) and S14 (26), all on GNN*** squadrons.
• stage\EnumSquadron_Test.tbl does not exist (0x213f4a7e is not in the TOC). It was listed as a candidate for the arrival-interval values; it is dead.
• AIParams_S02.tbl is keyed by AI profile, not squadron, and carries only combat tuning. SUBObjectiveSettings_S02.tbl is keyed SUBOBJ_005..014 with only points/unlock/HUD strings — no squadron, phase or trigger.

✅ Bonus: the UnitGroup record key, confirmed corpus-wide

A squadron record's key is tag_hash(squadron_id) — 1160/1160 across all 28 stages (ADN101 → 0x659aff47). Same hash as idxd-tag-hash; this is an independent confirmation of it on a second kind of table.

❔ Still open: what advances a phase

Nothing static encodes a trigger. Swept the stage record and every table it names — Route, AIParams, SUBObjectiveSettings, FormationSet, nameplate, EnumUnit, EnumCharacter, EnumLocalString, EnumWeapon — plus the message\ family, for field names matching interval|time|phase|delay|wave|spawn|arrival|trigger|start|appear|event|condition. The only hits anywhere are FrameCount and PresetMessage_Phase1/2/3 in message\UnitMessageSet_S02.tbl. The trigger is almost certainly in the executable, not the data.

Falsifiable predictions for the next run

• Per-record craft counts, in probe units (2×): 4 records at 8 = ADS151, ADT102, ADT107, ADT113 (all UN_e010_ADAN_Attacker_S); 1 record at 4 = TCN105 (UN_f106_TCAF_Destroyer); 24 records at 2 = the remaining phase-1 n=1 members.
• A phase advance should move the deployed set toward phase 2: 34 squadrons, 36 members, Σn 115 (≈230 in probe units).
• TCN207, TCN208 and TCS252 may fail to arrive in phase 2, because their routes are misnamed.

🟡 2026-08-25 — first long live observation: no phase advance, and a GAME OVER

Flew Stage 02 with an actively hunting pilot for 936 s while polling the runtime phase mirror [*(0x828F35F8) + 236] every 3 s (phase_probe.py).

The mirror never left 0. That is what the static work predicts rather than a contradiction: CScriptInterpreter::ChangePhase (opcode 995) is only posted when the ordinal is > 1 (the guard in mission-bytecode opcode 0x83), so a run that stays in phase 1 never writes the mirror. It does mean the mirror is useless as a "which phase am I in" readout for phase 1 — it reads 0, not 1. [ScriptMission+40] is the real counter and needs a debugger.

The run ended in GAME OVER — and the pilot's hull was still 1500/1500, so the player did not die. A script lose-branch fired, and the pilot log says which one is likely: the tracked asset fell from 100.8 % to 23.4 %, with ASSET-HIT events logged, while the pilot repeatedly AVOIDed f101_TCAF_Acropolis — a friendly capital ship — 2588 times.

So the escort was being destroyed throughout, and the mission failed with the player untouched. "Escort lost" is now a measured candidate rather than a guess, though the final asset value was 23.4 %, not 0, so the exact threshold (or whether a different unit's loss ended it) is not established.

So a phase advance still has not been observed. Two runs now — 530 s and 936 s — neither reached phase 2. Combined with the static reading that phase 1 polls unit_state on ADN110/ADN111/ADN112, the likeliest explanation is that those three squadrons were never destroyed; the pilot hunts whatever is nearest, not the objective. Next: bias the pilot at those squadrons' craft and re-run.

🔴 Refuted: sub_8226D740 does not read the flag register file

Chasing what reads the 32-entry flag file at [phase+120], the promising hit was three addi rN, r31, 120 inside sub_8226D740, the per-frame engine→script trigger edge. It is not the flag file. In that function r31 is a local trigger-record buffer whose fields are handed to sub_8226E220 as out-parameters (+80, +84, +88, +92, +112, +120), and lfd f1,120(r31) reads a double from the record. The phase is in r26/r29.

Offsets 88 and 120 are far too common (2091 and 5228 instructions image-wide, mostly stack frames) for an offset search to isolate the register files. Who reads the flags is still unknown, so the chain set_flag(8) → … → END_PHASE has a gap in the middle.

✅ 2026-08-25 — Stage 02 phase 1: destroy 27 Turrets (ADN110/111/112)

Resolving the three squadrons the phase-1 condition polls (isl-builtins, unit_state at 0xF524) against the roster:

squadron	phases	AI	unit	n
ADN110	1	AI_ADAN_CraftSquadron_Rookie	UN_e007_ADAN_Turret	9
ADN111	1	AI_ADAN_CraftSquadron_Veteran	UN_e007_ADAN_Turret	9
ADN112	1	AI_ADAN_CraftSquadron_Rookie	UN_e007_ADAN_Turret	9

All three are phase 1 (from the Route_S02 name map), all fly the same craft, all n = 9 — so the condition watches 27 Turrets, and all three squadrons share Formation_ADAN_Turret09_30.

Three independent layers agree here, which is the point worth recording: the route names say these are phase-1 squadrons, the roster says what they fly and how many, and the script polls exactly these three before latching set_flag(8).

✅ Confirms "Turret" is a craft type, not ship AA

The user's correction stands on the data: UN_e007_ADAN_Turret is flown by AI_ADAN_CraftSquadron_Rookie/_Veteran — a craft squadron AI, in a 30-slot craft formation — never AI_Structure. It is an enemy the player fights, not a gun bolted to a capital ship.

🟡 The prediction to test

If phase 1 clears on those three squadrons dying, then destroying 27 Turrets while the escort survives should push [ScriptMission+40] to 2 and make ChangePhase write the mirror at [*(0x828F35F8)+236]. Two runs so far killed whatever was nearest and never advanced.