From 612bfe6e841195d85740b0fbdc72b74666f00521 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: alex Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2026 08:51:42 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] lane K: two section headings that read as stronger claims than the text supports --- findings/control-flow/combat-done-tail.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/findings/control-flow/combat-done-tail.md b/findings/control-flow/combat-done-tail.md index 19d2659..397dc48 100644 --- a/findings/control-flow/combat-done-tail.md +++ b/findings/control-flow/combat-done-tail.md @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ ReVa sweep with its event literals read from the raw `push imm32` operands.* --- -## 5. The turn record — phase 36, `FUN_0078a0e0` +## 5. The turn record — phase 36, `StrategyServer::FinalizeTurnRecords` `ServerPlayer+0x3d8` is a per-player per-turn summary record. Lane T found two of its fields (`+0x8` alliance/vision mask, set in `ProcessTurn`'s pre-pass; `+0x10` trade income, from `ComputeBudget`). @@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ same word. Given §6's inference that the message is delivered every turn, `S+0x per turn while `S+0xc` (`ModCount`) advances once. They are not in lockstep, and a reimplementation must not treat `S+0x8` as a turn number. It reads as a **server-phase / driver-invocation counter**. -### 7.2 Turn results and turn events are **not** in this function +### 7.2 Turn results and turn events are not where lane T said `turn-driver.md` §5 says: *"no bankruptcy, no turn-results build, no turn-events build, no autosave. Those are all in `StrategyServer::OnAllCombatDone_Tail`."* One of the four is right.