Skip to main content
How Can We Help?
< All Topics
Print

Conflict: Software Agreement vs Real PSP Authority

Posted
Updated
ByJstar269

Conflict ID: CONFLICT-REAL-HARDWARE-AUTHORITY-001 · Status: RESOLVED AS SCOPE DIFFERENCE

Question

Can agreement between two software implementations stand in for real PSP authority, and does later hardware agreement erase source lineage?

Claims in conflict

  • A — implementation differential: Nakagawa and PPSSPP agree on a result, so the result appears credible.
  • B — evidence/provenance split: software agreement can share lineage and hardware can validate behavior without changing the implementation’s historical origin.

Discriminating evidence

The WaitThreadEnd experiment shows Nakagawa/PPSSPP agreement differing from PSP hardware. The VFPU experiment shows PSP hardware agreeing with Nakagawa while tested PPSSPP paths diverged. These are different evidence axes, not a majority vote.

Smallest supported conclusion

Use implementation agreement as a differential lead. Use source-owned real hardware as behavioral authority for the measured domain. Record source lineage separately; hardware confirmation does not rewrite provenance.

Publication rule

Every strong page must show evidence class, scope, common-mode lineage warnings, and the exact experiment or prior-art source. A route that succeeds is not automatically a PSP-correctness claim.

Related: EXP-VFPU-TRANSCEND-20260805-A · EXP-THREAD-WAITEND-20260805-A · Evidence reading guide · Last reviewed: 2026-08-11.

Current source anchor — Wave 4

The current public implementation reference is docs/HARDWARE_ORACLE.md at main 04daf156; software agreement is kept distinct from real-PSP authority.

Table of Contents