# Discovery Notes This file records hands-on observations separately from manual-derived facts. Treat these as bench notes: useful and current, but still worth rechecking with photos, continuity tests, and instrument captures. ## 2026-05-13 - RCP-TX7 10-Pin Power and Cable Observed on the RCP-TX7 10-pin remote connector/cable during restoration work: - Pin 9 confirmed as ground / DC return. - Pin 10 confirmed as power input. - Cable color for pin 9 / ground: brown. - Cable color for pin 10 / +12 V power: brown-white. - Cable colors for pins 1-8 have been continuity-mapped; see the working cable map below. - Yellow and yellow-white conductors are present in the cable but did not map to connector pins during continuity testing. - Multimeter reading from pin 9 ground to pin 4 serial data: about -9 V. - Multimeter reading from pin 9 ground to pin 7 serial data: about +0.037 V. - Pins 4 and 7 were the only serial-related combinations that produced a meaningful multimeter result during this check. - With power present on pins 9 and 10, the panel shows a green `PANEL ACTIVE` light. - The inside of the 10-pin cable contains 12 wires total. - Three of those wire groups are twisted pairs. Immediate implications: - The bench result agrees with the RCP-TX7 and CCU-TX7 manual pinout for pins 9 and 10. - The 12-conductor cable construction suggests not every conductor maps one-to-one to the 10 connector pins; shielding/drain, duplicated grounds, or paired signal returns may be present. - The three twisted pairs are likely important candidates for serial data, composite video, and/or power/ground pairing, but this should be confirmed by continuity testing rather than color or twist assumptions. - Pin 4 measuring around -9 V relative to pin 9 strongly suggests true RS-232 level idle on at least the RCP-to-CCU/camera data line. - Pin 7 near 0 V may be inactive/floating until a CCU or camera drives the return data line. ### Working Cable Map This table combines the manual-derived pin purpose with hands-on color mapping. Rows marked `confirmed` have been checked on the current cable/panel under test. | Pin | Purpose | Cable color | Status | Notes | | ---: | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Spare / unused | red | confirmed | No function shown in service manual. | | 2 | VBS / composite video X | black | confirmed | 1.0 Vp-p composite video input to RCP. | | 3 | VBS / composite video ground | green | confirmed | Video reference/ground. | | 4 | Serial data, RCP to CCU/camera | orange | confirmed | RS-232C-based data direction. | | 5 | Serial/data ground | blue | confirmed | One of two serial/data grounds. | | 6 | Serial/data ground | grey | confirmed | One of two serial/data grounds. | | 7 | Serial data, CCU/camera to RCP | purple | confirmed | RS-232C-based data direction. | | 8 | Spare / unused | purple-white | confirmed | No function shown in service manual. | | 9 | DC return / ground | brown | confirmed | Confirmed as ground on current cable. | | 10 | +12 V remote power input | brown-white | confirmed | Confirmed as power input on current cable. | ### Unmapped Cable Conductors The cable contains two additional conductors that did not show continuity to the 10 connector pins during the current test: | Conductor color | Current status | Notes | | --- | --- | --- | | yellow | unmapped | May be shield/drain-related, spare, broken, or connected only at one end. | | yellow-white | unmapped | May be shield/drain-related, spare, broken, or connected only at one end. | Recheck these against connector shells, shield braid/drain, cable strain relief hardware, and both ends of the cable if accessible. Suggested next observations to capture: 1. Connector orientation photo showing pin numbering reference. 2. Wire color list, including which colors form each twisted pair. 3. Confirm whether yellow and yellow-white connect to shield, shell, or one end only. 4. Resistance between pins 5, 6, and 9 with the cable disconnected. 5. Scope idle voltage and activity on pins 4 and 7 relative to pins 5/6 and pin 9 while pressing panel controls and, later, while connected to a CCU or camera. ## Serial Capture Setup Initial USB serial adapter wiring for passive listening: | Adapter terminal | RCP-TX7 cable pin | Cable color | Purpose | | --- | ---: | --- | --- | | `GND` | 9 | brown | Shared reference / DC return | | `RXD` | 4 | orange | Listen to RCP-to-CCU/camera serial data | Do not connect adapter `TXD` during the first capture pass. Pin 4 measured about -9 V relative to pin 9, so use the adapter's RS-232 side, not TTL UART mode. Capture helper: ```powershell python -m pip install pyserial python scripts/serial_sniff.py --list python scripts/serial_sniff.py --port COM3 --baud 38400 --ascii python scripts/serial_sniff.py --port COM3 --baud 38400 --frame-size 6 --log captures/rcp-pin4.txt ``` Replace `COM3` with the adapter port shown by `--list` or Windows Device Manager. While the script is running, press simple RCP controls and watch for new hex bytes. ### 2026-05-13 Initial Pin 4 Capture With the adapter in RS-232 mode, adapter `RXD` connected to RCP pin 4, and adapter `GND` connected to pin 9, the stream produced repeating 6-byte patterns: ```text 00 00 00 00 80 DA 00 00 07 80 00 DD ``` Observed behavior: - Frames repeat roughly every 200 ms during the sample. - The stream sometimes appeared split as `00` followed by five bytes, which is likely a read-timeout/chunking artifact rather than a protocol feature. - Button presses did not obviously correlate with a visible byte change in the first capture. Current interpretation: - This looks like a regular RCP-origin heartbeat/status transmission on pin 4, not random noise. - Because only pin 4 is connected, this may be the panel repeatedly trying to announce itself or poll a missing CCU/camera. - Pin 7 measured near 0 V and is probably quiet until a CCU/camera drives the return channel. Next capture passes: 1. Use `--frame-size 6` to avoid misleading `1 + 5` packet splits. 2. Capture a quiet baseline for 30 seconds. 3. Capture separate files while pressing one control repeatedly, naming the action in the filename. 4. Later, capture pin 7 when connected to a real CCU/camera or a controlled test transmitter. ### 2026-05-13 Baseline vs CAM POWER Capture Capture files: - `captures/rcp-pin4-baseline.txt` - `captures/rcp-pin4-cam-power.txt` - `captures/rcp-pin4-call.txt` Frame counts from the available logs: | Capture | Frame | Count | Current label | | --- | --- | ---: | --- | | baseline | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | 67 | idle heartbeat | | CAM POWER | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | 23 | idle heartbeat | | CAM POWER | `00 00 07 80 00 DD` | 4 | CAM POWER candidate | | CALL | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | 17 | idle heartbeat | | CALL | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` | 4 | CALL candidate, state/high bit set | | CALL | `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | 4 | CALL candidate, state/high bit clear | Current interpretation: - The baseline capture contains only `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. - Pressing `CAM POWER` introduces `00 00 07 80 00 DD`. - Pressing `CALL` introduces `00 00 15 80 00 CF` and `00 00 15 00 00 4F`. - Other tested buttons did not obviously produce unique frames while the panel was not connected to a CCU/camera. - `CAM POWER` and `CALL` may be among the few controls the panel transmits even without a completed host/CCU session. - The CALL frames differ by byte 4 (`80` vs `00`) and final byte (`CF` vs `4F`), suggesting a state bit plus checksum or complement-style trailing byte. - Current checksum hypothesis: byte 6 is XOR checksum with seed `0x5A` over the first five bytes. Examples: - `5A xor 00 xor 00 xor 00 xor 00 xor 80 = DA` - `5A xor 00 xor 00 xor 07 xor 80 xor 00 = DD` - `5A xor 00 xor 00 xor 15 xor 80 xor 00 = CF` - `5A xor 00 xor 00 xor 15 xor 00 xor 00 = 4F` Helper for future captures: ```powershell python scripts/analyze_capture.py captures/rcp-pin4-baseline.txt captures/rcp-pin4-cam-power.txt captures/rcp-pin4-call.txt ``` ## Host Response Experiments The RCP currently appears to be in an offline heartbeat state. With no CCU/camera response present, only `CAM POWER` and `CALL` have been observed to send unique frames beyond the heartbeat. The next protocol step is to learn what the RCP expects on pin 7 (`CCU/camera -> RCP`). Important wiring for host-response tests: | Adapter terminal | RCP-TX7 cable pin | Cable color | Purpose | | --- | ---: | --- | --- | | `GND` | 9 | brown | Shared reference / DC return | | `TXD` | 7 | purple | Candidate host-to-RCP transmit line | Suggested safety precautions: - Use the adapter's RS-232 side, not TTL UART. - Keep adapter `RXD` on pin 4 if possible so the RCP output is still logged. - Add a series resistor, for example 1 k to 4.7 k, between adapter `TXD` and pin 7 for early experiments. - Send one candidate frame at a time or repeat at a slow cadence. Avoid brute forcing unknown byte ranges. - Watch for changes in heartbeat, LCD state, panel lock state, or new frames on pin 4. Frame sender: ```powershell python scripts/serial_send_frame.py --port COM3 --dry-run python scripts/serial_send_frame.py --port COM3 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 5 --interval 0.2 ``` On Windows, a COM port is usually exclusive, so the sniffer and sender cannot open the same adapter at the same time. Use the combined probe script when RXD is connected to pin 4 and TXD is connected to pin 7: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM3 --tx-frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 5 --interval 0.2 --log captures/rcp-response-test.txt ``` This listens first, sends the candidate response from the same serial session, then keeps listening for changes on pin 4. Candidate first response: - `00 00 00 00 80 DA` - mirror the observed heartbeat as a possible no-op/ack. If mirroring the heartbeat changes nothing, the next low-risk approach is to capture a real CCU/camera response rather than guessing. If no host is available, try only checksum-valid, documented-frame-shape candidates and record every attempt in a separate capture log. ### 2026-05-13 Heartbeat Mirror Response Result Experiment: - Adapter `TXD` connected to RCP pin 7. - Sent `00 00 00 00 80 DA` on the host-to-RCP line as a mirrored heartbeat / possible no-op acknowledgement. - Capture file: `captures/rcp-response-heartbeat-mirror.txt`. Observed result: - The RCP screen changed to `CONNECT: NOT ACT`. - During this capture, pin 4 still transmitted only `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. - Frame count: 59 received heartbeat frames, 10 transmitted mirrored heartbeat frames. - Pin 4 heartbeat timing became more frequent during the response window, then returned to the slower baseline cadence afterward. Current interpretation: - The RCP is detecting return-channel traffic on pin 7. - Mirroring the heartbeat is enough to move the panel out of the simple offline state, but it does not complete active host/CCU negotiation. - `NOT ACT` likely means connected/not active, connected/not activated, or a similar state where the link is electrically/protocol-visible but no valid control session has been established. - The RCP did not emit a new command/status frame on pin 4 in response to the mirrored heartbeat, so the next handshake step is probably not simply an echo of its heartbeat. Additional checksum-valid response tests: | Capture | TX frame | RX result on pin 4 | Screen result | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `captures/rcp-response-zero-state.txt` | `00 00 00 00 00 5A` | heartbeat only | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | `captures/rcp-response-state-byte4.txt` | `00 00 00 80 00 DA` | heartbeat only | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | `captures/rcp-response-invalid-checksum.txt` | `00 00 00 00 80 00` | heartbeat only | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | TXD connected, no transmitted bytes | RS-232 idle only | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Single-byte test | `00` | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Single-byte test | `FF` | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Short-frame test | `00 00 00` | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Frame-length test | `00 00 00 00` | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Frame-length test | `00 00 00 00 80` | heartbeat only | no `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | | Frame-length test | `00 00 00 00 80 DA 00` | heartbeat only | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | Updated interpretation: - `CONNECT: NOT ACT` is probably a link-present state, not proof of a correct CCU handshake. - The RCP reacts to several checksum-valid 6-byte frames on pin 7, but continues sending only the pin 4 heartbeat. - An intentionally invalid checksum frame also produced `CONNECT: NOT ACT`, so that display state does not prove checksum acceptance. - The response needed to enter an active control session likely needs a specific status/identity/activation frame, not just a valid no-op frame shape. - TXD connected at idle without transmitted bytes did not produce `CONNECT: NOT ACT`, so the display state appears to require received byte activity on pin 7, not merely a driven RS-232 idle level. - Single-byte and three-byte transmissions did not produce `CONNECT: NOT ACT`, so the RCP is likely recognizing a minimum frame length or parser shape rather than arbitrary serial bytes. - Four-byte and five-byte transmissions did not produce `CONNECT: NOT ACT`, but a seven-byte transmission beginning with the known six-byte heartbeat did. This suggests the first six bytes are enough to trigger the parser/link state, and the seventh byte may be ignored, buffered for a later frame, or treated as extra data after the recognized packet. - None of the tested host frames have caused the RCP to emit anything on pin 4 except the heartbeat. Command-field response tests, using frame shape `00 00 CMD 00 80 CHECKSUM`: | Capture | TX frame | Checksum | Screen result | Notes | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd01.txt` | `00 00 01 00 80 DB` | valid | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | 6-byte command-shaped frame accepted enough to change display. | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd02.txt` | `00 00 02 00 80 DB` | invalid | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | Bad checksum still changed display. | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd02.txt` | `00 00 02 00 80 D8` | valid | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | Valid checksum also changed display. | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd03.txt` | `00 00 03 00 80 D9` | valid | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | 6-byte command-shaped frame accepted enough to change display. | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd04.txt` | `00 00 7F 00 80 A5` | valid | no screen change | First observed checksum-valid 6-byte frame that does not trigger `CONNECT: NOT ACT`. | | `captures/rcp-response-cmd05.txt` | `00 00 80 00 80 5A` | valid | `CONNECT: NOT ACT` | 6-byte command-shaped frame accepted enough to change display. | Implications from command-field tests: - Screen change is not simply based on frame length or checksum validity. - The command/status byte matters: `0x7F` appears ignored or treated as non-link-establishing, despite a valid checksum. - Tested commands `0x00`, `0x01`, `0x02`, `0x03`, and `0x80` can trigger `CONNECT: NOT ACT`; `0x7F` did not. - The RCP operating manual notes that `CAM POWER`, `MASTER`/`SLAVE`, and some monitor functions are available only when connected to a CCU, so active state may depend on CCU identity/status bits. Next low-risk response experiments: 1. Repeat the same test with logging enabled so the pin 4 output before, during, and after `CONNECT: NOT ACT` is captured. 2. Try sending the mirrored heartbeat continuously at a cadence close to the RCP heartbeat, for example every 0.6 seconds, and watch whether the display state changes. 3. Probe semantic fields within the six-byte frame shape, changing one byte at a time and logging both screen state and pin 4 output. Prioritize small command values and avoid broad brute-force sweeps. 4. Prefer capturing a real CCU/camera pin 7 response before broad guessing. ### Command Sweep Helper A cautious command-byte sweep helper is available at `scripts/serial_sweep_commands.py`. It sends only checksum-valid six-byte frames using the current frame/checksum hypothesis and marks any RCP output that is not the known heartbeat. Recommended first sweep: ```powershell python scripts/serial_sweep_commands.py --port COM5 --start 0x00 --end 0x20 --after-each 1.0 --log captures/rcp-sweep-cmd-00-20.txt ``` Optional dry run: ```powershell python scripts/serial_sweep_commands.py --port COM5 --start 0x00 --end 0x20 --dry-run ``` Use small ranges and keep watching the RCP screen while the sweep runs. The log captures TX/RX bytes, but it cannot record screen messages unless they are noted manually afterward. The `0x00-0x20` sweep produced `CONNECT: NOT ACT` roughly halfway through the run, but the exact command was not recorded in the log. Rerun a narrower range with manual screen prompts: ```powershell python scripts/serial_sweep_commands.py --port COM5 --start 0x0C --end 0x14 --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-sweep-cmd-0c-14-screen.txt ``` At each prompt, press Enter for no screen change, type `CONNECT: NOT ACT` when that appears, or type `q` to stop. Prompted sweep result: - Capture: `captures/rcp-sweep-cmd-0c-14-screen.txt`. - The RCP was reset after each screen trigger to clear its state, so recorded triggers should be treated as independent fresh observations. - First recorded screen marker: after command `0x0C`, frame `00 00 0C 00 80 D6`, screen `CONNECT: NOT ACT`. - Later manual screen markers were recorded after `0x0D`, `0x10`, `0x11`, `0x12`, `0x13`, and `0x14`. - No manual screen markers were recorded after `0x0E` or `0x0F`. - Pin 4 output remained the heartbeat `00 00 00 00 80 DA` throughout. Interpretation: - Commands `0x0C`, `0x0D`, `0x10`, `0x11`, `0x12`, `0x13`, and `0x14` have independent evidence of triggering `CONNECT: NOT ACT` in this sweep. - Commands `0x0E` and `0x0F` did not have a screen marker recorded in this sweep and are current non-trigger candidates. - Because pin 4 stayed heartbeat-only, this state change is visible on the LCD but does not yet produce a new RCP-to-host serial response. Second prompted sweep result: - Capture: `captures/rcp-sweep-cmd-15-30-screen.txt`. - The log includes one partial/restarted pass at the beginning, then a fuller prompted sweep through `0x30`. - Pin 4 output remained the heartbeat `00 00 00 00 80 DA` throughout. Commands with recorded `CONNECT: NOT ACT` screen markers: | Command | TX frame | | ---: | --- | | `0x15` | `00 00 15 00 80 CF` | | `0x16` | `00 00 16 00 80 CC` | | `0x17` | `00 00 17 00 80 CD` | | `0x18` | `00 00 18 00 80 C2` | | `0x19` | `00 00 19 00 80 C3` | | `0x1A` | `00 00 1A 00 80 C0` | | `0x1B` | `00 00 1B 00 80 C1` | | `0x1C` | `00 00 1C 00 80 C6` | | `0x1D` | `00 00 1D 00 80 C7` | | `0x28` | `00 00 28 00 80 F2` | | `0x29` | `00 00 29 00 80 F3` | | `0x2C` | `00 00 2C 00 80 F6` | | `0x2D` | `00 00 2D 00 80 F7` | | `0x30` | `00 00 30 00 80 EA` | Commands with no recorded screen marker in this sweep: ```text 0x1E 0x1F 0x20 0x21 0x22 0x23 0x24 0x25 0x26 0x27 0x2A 0x2B 0x2E 0x2F ``` Emerging pattern: - Some command byte ranges trigger `CONNECT: NOT ACT` while nearby checksum-valid commands do not. - Triggering still does not make the RCP transmit anything except the heartbeat. - `CONNECT: NOT ACT` appears to be a parser-recognized but not session-active state. It may indicate the RCP recognizes the command class as CCU-like, but the remaining status/identity/activation fields are wrong or incomplete. ### Targeted Field Matrix Probe After the `0x15-0x30` sweep, the best next experiment is not a broader command sweep. The command byte is clearly relevant, but active-session behavior may depend on the state/value fields or the prefix bytes. Use `scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py` to hold one promising command constant and vary only a small set of fields. Start with command `0x15` because it is already associated with the RCP's own `CALL` output frames: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py --port COM5 --commands 0x15 --states "0x00 0x80" --values "0x00 0x80" --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-state-value.txt ``` Dry-run frames: ```text 00 00 15 00 00 4F 00 00 15 00 80 CF 00 00 15 80 00 CF 00 00 15 80 80 4F ``` Why this is useful: - `00 00 15 00 00 4F` and `00 00 15 80 00 CF` match the RCP's observed `CALL` frames. - `00 00 15 00 80 CF` matches the command-sweep shape that triggered `CONNECT: NOT ACT`. - `00 00 15 80 80 4F` checks whether both high/state bits together change the parser state. If all four still produce only `CONNECT: NOT ACT` or no change, the next matrix should keep `cmd=0x15`, `state=0x00`, `value=0x80`, and vary only prefix bytes: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py --port COM5 --prefix2s "0x00-0x0F" --commands 0x15 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-prefix2-00-0f.txt ``` Treat any result other than heartbeat-only pin 4 output as high-priority. In particular, look for a new RCP frame, a different LCD message, or any transition from `CONNECT: NOT ACT` to an active/connected state. ### 2026-05-13 Command `0x15` State/Value Matrix Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-state-value.txt` Frames tested: | Command | State | Value | TX frame | Screen result | | ---: | ---: | ---: | --- | --- | | `0x15` | `0x00` | `0x00` | `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x15` | `0x00` | `0x80` | `00 00 15 00 80 CF` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x15` | `0x80` | `0x00` | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x15` | `0x80` | `0x80` | `00 00 15 80 80 4F` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | Analyzer result: - Pin 4 RX stayed at heartbeat only: `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. - No non-heartbeat RCP-to-host frames were observed. - The RCP was sensitive to all four command `0x15` variants, including both frames that match the panel's own `CALL` output, but none advanced the panel beyond `CONNECT NOT ACT`. Interpretation: - For command `0x15`, the tested state/value high bits are not enough to produce an active session. - The missing host response is likely in another field, a required repeated cadence, a multi-frame exchange, or a CCU/camera identity/status frame. - Since command `0x15` is parser-visible across all tested state/value variants, it is a good anchor for prefix-byte testing. Recommended next matrix: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py --port COM5 --prefix2s "0x00-0x0F" --commands 0x15 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-prefix2-00-0f.txt ``` If all `prefix2` values behave the same, repeat with `prefix1s "0x00-0x0F"` and `prefix2s 0x00`. Prefix bytes may encode device address, CCU identity, panel number, or bus direction. ### 2026-05-13 Command `0x15` Prefix2 Matrix Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-prefix2-00-0f.txt` Test shape: - `p1=0x00` - `p2=0x00-0x0F` - `cmd=0x15` - `state=0x00` - `value=0x80` Analyzer result: - Pin 4 RX stayed at heartbeat only: `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. - No non-heartbeat RCP-to-host frames were observed. - The log contains 263 heartbeat RX frames and 16 transmitted prefix2 variants. Screen observations: - `CONNECT NOT ACT` was recorded after prefix2 values `0x00`, `0x01`, `0x02`, `0x03`, `0x04`, `0x05`, `0x06`, `0x08`, `0x09`, `0x0A`, `0x0B`, `0x0C`, `0x0D`, and `0x0E`. - No screen marker was recorded after prefix2 `0x07` or `0x0F`. - One marker was typed as `CONNECT NTO ACT`; treat this as the same observation unless later testing proves otherwise. Interpretation: - Prefix2 did not produce an active session in the tested low-nibble range. - The missing response is still not visible on pin 4. - The missing markers at `0x07` and `0x0F` may be real parser behavior, because both have low three bits set, but this needs a focused confirmation run before treating it as a rule. Recommended confirmation: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py --port COM5 --prefix2s "0x06 0x07 0x08 0x0E 0x0F" --commands 0x15 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-prefix2-confirm.txt ``` Reset the RCP after any screen-triggering result. This keeps the comparison between trigger and non-trigger prefix2 values clean. ### 2026-05-13 Prefix2 Confirmation Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-matrix-cmd15-prefix2-confirm.txt` Test shape: - `p1=0x00` - `p2=0x06`, `0x07`, `0x08`, `0x0E`, `0x0F` - `cmd=0x15` - `state=0x00` - `value=0x80` Screen observations: | Prefix2 | TX frame | Screen marker | | ---: | --- | --- | | `0x06` | `00 06 15 00 80 C9` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x07` | `00 07 15 00 80 C8` | none recorded | | `0x08` | `00 08 15 00 80 C7` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x0E` | `00 0E 15 00 80 C1` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | | `0x0F` | `00 0F 15 00 80 C0` | none recorded | Analyzer result: - 65 heartbeat RX frames: `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. - 14 apparent non-heartbeat RX frames after `p2=0x0F`: `00 00 00 80 DA 00`. - No other RCP-to-host frame shape was observed. Interpretation: - `p2=0x07` and `p2=0x0F` again failed to produce a recorded screen marker, while neighboring values did. - The apparent `00 00 00 80 DA 00` response after `p2=0x0F` is probably a one-byte framing slip of the normal heartbeat stream, because it is exactly the heartbeat sequence viewed from byte offset 1: `00 00 00 00 80 DA 00 00 ...`. - Because the shifted heartbeat also satisfies the current XOR checksum hypothesis, checksum validity alone is not enough to prove frame alignment. Recommended raw confirmation for `p2=0x0F`: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 0F 15 00 80 C0" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-prefix2-0f-raw.txt ``` Then repeat for `p2=0x07`: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 07 15 00 80 C8" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-prefix2-07-raw.txt ``` Raw capture avoids imposing 6-byte alignment on the received stream, so it should show whether the apparent non-heartbeat is a real frame or just a shifted view of the heartbeat. ### Series Resistor Note Current host-to-RCP tests use a series resistor between adapter `TXD` and RCP pin 7 as a protection measure. A 4.7 kOhm series resistor should normally still work with a high-impedance RS-232 receiver input, so it is unlikely to explain a selective pattern where nearby checksum-valid frames behave differently. Possible resistor-related failure modes: - If the RCP input is much lower impedance than expected, 4.7 kOhm could reduce the voltage swing at pin 7. - If the input is clamped internally, the resistor may limit current enough to make the received waveform marginal. - Marginal signaling would more likely produce random missed/garbled frames than a repeatable distinction between specific prefix values. Low-risk check: - Measure pin 7 relative to pin 9 on the RCP side of the resistor while the adapter is idle; it should show a strong RS-232 idle level, not near 0 V. - If testing without the resistor, first try a smaller protection resistor such as 1 kOhm rather than going straight to a direct connection. - Compare one known-trigger frame, such as `00 06 15 00 80 C9`, and one suspected non-trigger frame, such as `00 07 15 00 80 C8`, using the same reset procedure. ### Direct Response Sweep Without Screen Logging For response hunting, use `scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py` rather than the older fixed-frame sweep. It sends checksum-valid 6-byte host frames, but reads pin 4 as raw bytes and checks whether the received data can be explained as the repeated heartbeat: ```text 00 00 00 00 80 DA ``` This avoids treating shifted heartbeat bytes such as `00 00 00 80 DA 00` as a new response frame. Recommended first direct sweep: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00-0xFF" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-00-ff.txt ``` For a long sweep where every anomaly should be logged but the panel needs a fresh power cycle before continuing, use `--pause-on-anomaly` instead of `--stop-on-anomaly`. After the prompt, power-cycle the RCP, wait for the normal heartbeat, then press Enter. What to watch for: - If the script reports `Anomalies: 0`, the panel never sent raw bytes that differed from the heartbeat stream during this sweep. - If it stops on an anomaly, preserve the log and rerun only the reported frame with raw capture before assuming it is a real response. - Keep the same resistor/wiring setup for this run so the result remains comparable to the earlier observations. If the command-only direct sweep finds nothing, the next direct grid should be split into two chunks to stay within the default safety limit: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix2s "0x00-0x0F" --commands "0x00-0x1F" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.4 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-p2-00-0f-cmd-00-1f.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix2s "0x00-0x0F" --commands "0x20-0x3F" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.4 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-p2-00-0f-cmd-20-3f.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Direct Command Sweep Response Hit Capture: - `captures/rcp-direct-cmd-00-ff.txt` Sweep shape: - `p1=0x00` - `p2=0x00` - `cmd=0x00-0xFF` - `state=0x00` - `value=0x80` - Stop on first raw RX anomaly. Important result: - The sweep stopped immediately after transmitting command `0xB5`: `00 00 B5 00 80 6F`. - The previous transmitted command was `0xB4`: `00 00 B4 00 80 6E`, about 0.6 seconds earlier. - The RCP produced repeated non-heartbeat frames: `07 80 6D 20 D8 48`. - Final raw capture showed the same frame repeated, then the panel returned to the normal heartbeat `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. Observed response: ```text 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 ... 00 00 00 00 80 DA ``` Checksum check: - `5A xor 07 xor 80 xor 6D xor 20 xor D8 = 48`. - This means `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` is a real checksum-valid 6-byte frame under the current checksum hypothesis, not a shifted heartbeat artifact. Interpretation: - This is the first confirmed non-heartbeat RCP-to-host serial response on pin 4 during host-frame probing. - `cmd=0xB5` is the most likely trigger, but `cmd=0xB4` should be retested because it was sent one read window earlier and delayed responses are possible. - The response frame shape suggests the RCP may be reporting a status or identity-like frame with `p1=0x07`, `p2=0x80`, `cmd=0x6D`, `state=0x20`, `value=0xD8`. Recommended confirmation tests: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B4 00 80 6E" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b4-raw.txt python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b5-raw.txt python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B6 00 80 6C" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b6-raw.txt ``` If `cmd=0xB5` reliably triggers the `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` response, test whether the response depends on the state/value fields: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_matrix.py --port COM5 --commands 0xB5 --states "0x00 0x80" --values "0x00 0x80" --after-each 1.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-matrix-cmd-b5-state-value.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 B4/B5/B6 Single-Frame Confirmation Captures: - `captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b4-raw.txt` - `captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b5-raw.txt` - `captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b6-raw.txt` Single frames tested: | Command | TX frame | Pin 4 result | | ---: | --- | --- | | `0xB4` | `00 00 B4 00 80 6E` | heartbeat only | | `0xB5` | `00 00 B5 00 80 6F` | heartbeat only | | `0xB6` | `00 00 B6 00 80 6C` | heartbeat only | Interpretation: - The earlier `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` response did not reproduce from isolated single-frame `B4`, `B5`, or `B6` tests. - The response may require prior sweep history, a command sequence, repeated cadence, or a temporary parser/session state produced by many earlier frames. - The `B5` frame is still the best suspect because the direct sweep reported the anomaly in the read window immediately after transmitting `B5`, but it is not sufficient by itself in a fresh single-frame test. Recommended focused replay: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b8-replay.txt ``` If that does not reproduce the response, try the same range with a shorter cadence to better mimic the long sweep: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.25 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b8-fast.txt ``` If the focused range still does not reproduce it, rerun the longer sweep from `0xA0-0xB8` rather than the full `0x00-0xFF` range: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xA0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-a0-b8-replay.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 B0-B8 Focused Replay Hit Capture: - `captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b8-replay.txt` Replay shape: - `p1=0x00` - `p2=0x00` - `cmd=0xB0-0xB8` - `state=0x00` - `value=0x80` - `after-each=0.6` - Stop on first raw RX anomaly. Important result: - The sweep sent `cmd=0xB0`, then `cmd=0xB1`. - The anomaly was captured in the read window immediately after transmitting `cmd=0xB1`: `00 00 B1 00 80 6B`. - The RCP emitted one checksum-valid non-heartbeat frame: `07 80 6C 20 D8 49`. - The final read window returned to heartbeat-only traffic. Checksum check: - `5A xor 07 xor 80 xor 6C xor 20 xor D8 = 49`. Comparison with the earlier full sweep hit: | Trigger window | RCP response | | --- | --- | | After `cmd=0xB1` in focused `B0-B8` replay | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` | | After `cmd=0xB5` in full `00-FF` sweep | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | Interpretation: - The non-heartbeat response is reproducible with a short local sequence, so it does not require the entire `0x00-0xFF` sweep history. - The response may be sequence-dependent: `B1` alone is not yet proven as the trigger because `B0` was sent one window earlier. - The response command byte changed from `0x6D` to `0x6C`, which suggests the RCP may be returning a status/identity code related to the host command or to internal state. Recommended tight confirmations: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b0-raw.txt python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B1 00 80 6B" --repeat 1 --delay 1.5 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b1-raw.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b1-replay.txt ``` If `B1` alone is heartbeat-only but `B0-B1` reproduces the response, treat `B0 -> B1` as a required two-frame sequence. ### 2026-05-13 B0/B1 Tight Confirmation Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b0-raw.txt` - `captures/rcp-confirm-cmd-b1-raw.txt` - `captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b1-replay.txt` Results: | Test | Pin 4 result | | --- | --- | | Single `B0`: `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` | heartbeat only | | Single `B1`: `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | heartbeat only | | Sequence `B0 -> B1` | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | Interpretation: - The `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` response from the `B0-B8` replay did not reproduce with the minimal `B0 -> B1` sequence. - The response may be intermittent, cadence-sensitive, dependent on a longer sequence such as `B0-B8`, or affected by panel state that was not identical between runs. - The next priority is measuring reproducibility of the same short range rather than expanding the search space. Recommended reproducibility test: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --after-each 0.6 --cycles 5 --cycle-pause 2 --log captures/rcp-direct-cmd-b0-b8-cycles.txt ``` Run this without `--stop-on-anomaly` so all five cycles complete and the log can show whether the response happens consistently, intermittently, or only once. ### Power-Cycle Isolation Test Plan Use this plan when intentionally power-cycling the RCP between tests. The goal is to distinguish a cold-boot reproducible protocol response from a response that only appears after accumulated parser/session state. Before each test: 1. Stop any serial script. 2. Power off the RCP. 3. Wait at least 5 seconds. 4. Power on the RCP. 5. Wait until the panel is stable and heartbeat traffic has resumed. 6. Run exactly one test command. Keep the wiring and series resistor the same between tests unless the test name explicitly says otherwise. #### Set A: Cold-Boot Reproducibility Run these first. They test whether the `B0-B8` response is repeatable from a fresh power cycle. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-a1-b0-b8.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-a2-b0-b8.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-a3-b0-b8.txt ``` Expected useful outcomes: - If all three produce the same response, the sequence is cold-boot reproducible. - If only some produce a response, the behavior may be timing-sensitive or intermittent. - If none produce a response, the earlier hit likely depended on prior panel state. #### Set B: Minimum Sequence Length Run this set only if Set A produces at least one response. Power-cycle between each command. These tests find the shortest command prefix that can trigger a non-heartbeat response. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b1-b0-b1.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB2" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b2-b0-b2.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB3" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b3-b0-b3.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB4" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b4-b0-b4.txt ``` #### Set C: Cadence Sensitivity Run this set if Set A is inconsistent or if Set B does not identify a clean minimum sequence. Power-cycle between each command. Slow cadence: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 1.2 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-c1-b0-b8-slow.txt ``` Fast cadence: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.25 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-c2-b0-b8-fast.txt ``` Very fast cadence: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB8" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.1 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-c3-b0-b8-very-fast.txt ``` #### Set D: Control Tests Run these if the `B0-B8` range is producing responses. Power-cycle between each command. These confirm the response is specific to the `B0` range. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xA8-0xAF" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-d1-a8-af-control.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB8-0xBF" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-d2-b8-bf-control.txt ``` If a response appears in control ranges too, the trigger may be a broader command class rather than a specific `B0-B8` sequence. ### 2026-05-13 Power-Cycle Set A Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-a1-b0-b8.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-a2-b0-b8.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-a3-b0-b8.txt` Each run was performed after a panel power cycle. All three runs produced the same non-heartbeat response. | Run | Trigger window | RCP response | Result | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | A1 | after `B1`: `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | anomaly | | A2 | after `B1`: `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | anomaly | | A3 | after `B1`: `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | anomaly | Observed raw pattern in each run: ```text 07 80 6C 20 D8 49 07 80 6C 20 D8 49 07 80 6C 20 D8 49 ... 00 00 00 00 80 DA ``` Interpretation: - The `B0-B8` response is cold-boot reproducible. - The response appears immediately after the `B1` transmit window when the test starts from a fresh power cycle. - The earlier `B0 -> B1` heartbeat-only result was likely affected by panel state from previous experiments, timing, or not starting from an equivalent cold condition. - The next test should determine whether `B0 -> B1` is sufficient from a fresh power cycle, or whether the script/test context of the `B0-B8` run matters. Recommended next power-cycle tests: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b1-b0-b1.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 B1 00 80 6B" --repeat 1 --delay 3 --after 5 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-powercycle-b1-alone-raw.txt ``` If `B0-B1` reproduces but `B1` alone does not, treat `B0 -> B1` as the minimum cold-boot sequence. ### 2026-05-13 Minimum Cold-Boot Sequence Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-b1-b0-b1.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-b1-alone-raw.txt` Each test was run after a panel power cycle. | Test | TX frame(s) | Pin 4 result | | --- | --- | --- | | `B0` alone | `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | | `B1` alone | `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | heartbeat only | | `B0 -> B1` | `00 00 B0 00 80 6A`, then `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | Conclusion: - The minimum confirmed cold-boot trigger is the two-frame sequence: ```text Host -> RCP: 00 00 B0 00 80 6A Host -> RCP: 00 00 B1 00 80 6B RCP -> Host: 07 80 6C 20 D8 49 ``` - Neither `B0` nor `B1` is sufficient alone from a cold panel. - `B0` appears to prime the panel, and `B1` completes the query/trigger. - The response repeats for a short period, then the panel returns to the normal heartbeat `00 00 00 00 80 DA`. Recommended next tests: 1. Timing sensitivity between `B0` and `B1`. 2. State/value sensitivity of the `B0 -> B1` pair. 3. Whether the response changes when sending nearby pairs such as `B1 -> B2`, `B2 -> B3`, etc. Suggested timing tests, with power cycle between each: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.1 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-timing-b0-b1-100ms.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0-0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 1.2 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-timing-b0-b1-1200ms.txt ``` Suggested nearby-pair tests, with power cycle between each: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB1-0xB2" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b1-b2.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB2-0xB3" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b2-b3.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 B0-B1 Timing Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-timing-b0-b1-100ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-timing-b0-b1-1200ms.txt` Each test was run after a panel power cycle. | B0-to-B1 spacing | RCP response | | ---: | --- | | about 100 ms | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` | | about 1200 ms | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | Interpretation: - The `B0 -> B1` trigger is not tightly timing-sensitive across the tested range. - `B0` appears to prime a state that remains valid for at least about 1.2 seconds. - The sequence order is more important than exact short timing. Recommended next tests: Power-cycle between each test. Check whether the trigger is specific to the `B0 -> B1` pair or whether nearby ordered pairs also trigger related responses: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB1-0xB2" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b1-b2.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB2-0xB3" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b2-b3.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xAF-0xB0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-af-b0.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Nearby Pair Results Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-af-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b1-b2.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b2-b3.txt` Each test was run after a panel power cycle. | Host pair | Second frame window | RCP response | | --- | --- | --- | | `AF -> B0` | `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` | `07 80 6C 60 30 E1` repeated | | `B1 -> B2` | `00 00 B2 00 80 68` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` repeated | | `B2 -> B3` | `00 00 B3 00 80 69` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` repeated | Previously confirmed: | Host pair | Second frame window | RCP response | | --- | --- | --- | | `B0 -> B1` | `00 00 B1 00 80 6B` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` repeated | Checksum checks: - `07 80 6C 60 30 E1`: checksum valid. - `07 80 36 10 0C F7`: checksum valid. - `07 80 36 10 2C D7`: checksum valid. Interpretation: - The RCP responds to multiple adjacent two-frame host sequences in the `AF-B3` region, not only `B0 -> B1`. - The response appears in the read window after the second frame of each pair. - The response payload changes by pair, which suggests these are real command queries or status reads rather than a generic link-present acknowledgement. - The repeated response pattern still returns to the normal heartbeat afterward. Emerging map: | Host sequence | RCP response fields | | --- | --- | | `AF -> B0` | `p1=07 p2=80 cmd=6C state=60 value=30 checksum=E1` | | `B0 -> B1` | `p1=07 p2=80 cmd=6C state=20 value=D8 checksum=49` | | `B1 -> B2` | `p1=07 p2=80 cmd=36 state=10 value=0C checksum=F7` | | `B2 -> B3` | `p1=07 p2=80 cmd=36 state=10 value=2C checksum=D7` | Recommended next tests: Power-cycle between each. First continue the adjacent-pair map: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB3-0xB4" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b3-b4.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB4-0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b4-b5.txt ``` Then test whether adjacency and order matter: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB0 0xB2" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b0-b2-skip.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB1 0xB0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b1-b0-reverse.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Additional Pair/Control Results User observation: - All tests still showed `CONNECT NOT ACT` on the RCP/CCU screen, with no other visible state change. Serial captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b3-b4.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b4-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b0-b2-skip.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b1-b0-reverse.txt` Each test was run after a panel power cycle. | Host pair | Second frame window | RCP response | | --- | --- | --- | | `B3 -> B4` | `00 00 B4 00 80 6E` | `07 80 6D 40 30 C0` repeated | | `B4 -> B5` | `00 00 B5 00 80 6F` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` repeated | | `B0 -> B2` | `00 00 B2 00 80 68` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` repeated | | `B1 -> B0` | `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` repeated | Interpretation: - The screen state remains `CONNECT NOT ACT`, but pin 4 responses are changing in a structured, checksum-valid way. - The skip test `B0 -> B2` produced the same response as `B1 -> B2`, so the second command may be the main selector once any valid priming frame is sent. - The reverse test `B1 -> B0` also produced a valid response, so strict ascending adjacency is not required. - Current model: a first host frame primes/enters a response mode, and the second host frame selects a status/query response. Expanded observed response map: | Second host command | Observed response(s) | | ---: | --- | | `B0` | `07 80 6C 60 30 E1` after `AF -> B0`; `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` after `B1 -> B0` | | `B1` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` after `B0 -> B1` | | `B2` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` after `B1 -> B2` and `B0 -> B2` | | `B3` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` after `B2 -> B3` | | `B4` | `07 80 6D 40 30 C0` after `B3 -> B4` | | `B5` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` after `B4 -> B5` | Recommended next tests: Power-cycle between each. Test whether a generic primer plus selected second command is enough: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b0.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB2" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b2.txt ``` Then map the next selected second commands: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB5-0xB6" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b5-b6.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0xB6-0xB7" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b6-b7.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Generic Primer and B6-B7 Results Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b2.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b5-b6.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-pair-b6-b7.txt` Each test was run after a panel power cycle. | Host pair | Second frame window | RCP response | | --- | --- | --- | | `00 -> B0` | `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` repeated | | `00 -> B2` | `00 00 B2 00 80 68` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` repeated | | `B5 -> B6` | `00 00 B6 00 80 6C` | `07 80 1B 08 C6 08` repeated | | `B6 -> B7` | `00 00 B7 00 80 6D` | `07 80 1B 08 D6 18` repeated | Checksum checks: - `07 80 6C 40 30 C1`: checksum valid. - `07 80 36 10 0C F7`: checksum valid. - `07 80 1B 08 C6 08`: checksum valid. - `07 80 1B 08 D6 18`: checksum valid. Interpretation: - `00 -> B0` produced the same response as `B1 -> B0`. - `00 -> B2` produced the same response as `B0 -> B2` and `B1 -> B2`. - This supports the model that the first frame can be a generic valid primer, and the second frame selects the response. - The `B6` and `B7` selected responses introduce another response command class (`cmd=0x1B`) with changing value bytes. Updated selected-command map: | Selected second command | Observed response | | ---: | --- | | `B0` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` after `00 -> B0` and `B1 -> B0`; `07 80 6C 60 30 E1` after `AF -> B0` | | `B1` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` after `B0 -> B1` | | `B2` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` after `00 -> B2`, `B0 -> B2`, and `B1 -> B2` | | `B3` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` after `B2 -> B3` | | `B4` | `07 80 6D 40 30 C0` after `B3 -> B4` | | `B5` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` after `B4 -> B5` | | `B6` | `07 80 1B 08 C6 08` after `B5 -> B6` | | `B7` | `07 80 1B 08 D6 18` after `B6 -> B7` | Recommended next controls: Power-cycle between each. First prove whether `B2`, `B6`, and `B7` need a primer, or whether they can respond as single frames from cold boot: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xB2 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b2.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xB6 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b6.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xB7 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b7.txt ``` Then continue the selected-command map using `00` as the primer: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB3" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b3.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB4" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b4.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b5.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Single-Frame and One-Shot Primer Results Captures: - `captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b2.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b6.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-single-b7.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b3.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b4.txt` - `captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b5.txt` Single-frame controls, each after a panel power cycle: | Test | Pin 4 result | | --- | --- | | `B2` alone | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | | `B6` alone | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | | `B7` alone | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | Generic-primer map, each first run after a panel power cycle: | Host pair | Second frame window | RCP response | | --- | --- | --- | | `00 -> B3` | `00 00 B3 00 80 69` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` repeated | | `00 -> B4` | `00 00 B4 00 80 6E` | `07 80 6D 40 30 C0` | | `00 -> B5` | `00 00 B5 00 80 6F` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` repeated | Repeated `00 -> B5` without power-cycling: | Attempt | Power cycle before attempt? | Result | | ---: | --- | --- | | 1 | yes | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` repeated | | 2 | no | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | | 3 | no | heartbeat only, `Anomalies: 0` | Interpretation: - A single selected command is not enough; the panel requires a preceding valid primer frame. - `00` works as a primer for `B0`, `B2`, `B3`, `B4`, and `B5`. - The same primed query may be one-shot after power-up. After `00 -> B5` returns its response, repeating `00 -> B5` without power-cycling does not produce another non-heartbeat response. - Future mapping should power-cycle before each selected-command test unless intentionally studying latch/repeat behavior. Current generic-primer selected-command map: | Host query | RCP response | | --- | --- | | `00 -> B0` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` | | `00 -> B2` | `07 80 36 10 0C F7` | | `00 -> B3` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` | | `00 -> B4` | `07 80 6D 40 30 C0` | | `00 -> B5` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | Recommended next tests: Power-cycle before each query. Fill the missing `00 -> B1` entry and continue the `00 -> selected` map: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB1" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b1.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB6" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b6.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB7" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-powercycle-primer-00-b7.txt ``` Optional latch test, without power-cycling after the first run: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.6 --cycles 3 --cycle-pause 2 --log captures/rcp-latch-primer-00-b5-cycles.txt ``` ## Current Inferred Behavior The current evidence suggests the RCP is entering a discovery/query/status-read phase, not a completed active-control handshake. Working model: ```text Host/CCU -> RCP: valid primer frame Host/CCU -> RCP: selected query/status command RCP -> Host/CCU: checksum-valid response frame repeated briefly RCP -> Host/CCU: returns to heartbeat ``` Important details: - Single selected commands such as `B2`, `B6`, and `B7` do not respond from a cold panel. - A preceding valid frame is required. `00 00 00 00 80 DA` works as a generic primer for several selected commands. - The second command selects the response payload. - The LCD can remain `CONNECT NOT ACT` while serial responses vary in a structured way. Serial response does not yet mean the active control session is accepted. - At least some primed queries appear one-shot after power-up. Repeating the same primed query without power-cycling can produce only heartbeat traffic. Likely protocol role: - These `B0`-range commands may be a CCU discovery or capability/status query phase. - The CCU may query RCP model/capability/state blocks before sending a later activation/session command. - The next unknown is the command or command sequence that follows these discovery responses and moves the panel from `CONNECT NOT ACT` to active. ## Primer-Candidate Broad Sweep Use `scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py` for broader searches based on the current primer/query model. It sends: ```text primer frame -> candidate frame -> raw RX classification ``` For clean mapping, use `--prompt-power-cycle` and power-cycle before each candidate. This avoids the one-shot/latch behavior contaminating later candidates. Example dry run: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB0-0xB7" --dry-run ``` Continue the known `B` range first: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB1 0xB6 0xB7 0xB8 0xB9 0xBA 0xBB 0xBC 0xBD 0xBE 0xBF" --prompt-power-cycle --stop-on-anomaly --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-b1-bf.txt ``` Because `--stop-on-anomaly` stops at the first response, after each hit: 1. Save the reported candidate and response frame. 2. Power-cycle the panel. 3. Restart the sweep from the next unmapped candidate. For non-stop mapping, omit `--stop-on-anomaly`, but still power-cycle at each prompt: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB8-0xBF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-b8-bf.txt ``` Suggested broad ranges after `B0-BF`: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xA0-0xAF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-a0-af.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xC0-0xCF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-c0-cf.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x00-0x1F" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-00-1f.txt ``` Recommended first run: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB1 0xB6 0xB7 0xB8 0xB9 0xBA 0xBB 0xBC 0xBD 0xBE 0xBF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-b1-bf.txt ``` ## Primer Reuse and Sequential Query Tests Two open questions: 1. After a cold boot, does the RCP only answer one selected query before it latches/suppresses further responses? 2. Is a fresh primer required before every selected query, or can one primer unlock several selected commands in sequence? Use `scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py` for these tests because it can send arbitrary command sequences without stopping between commands. For each test below, power-cycle once before starting the script, then do not power-cycle again until the script exits. ### Test S1: One Primer, Multiple Different Queries Purpose: test whether one primer can unlock several different selected commands. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB2 0xB3 0xB4 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-one-primer-b2-b5.txt ``` Interpretation: - If only `B2` responds, the panel likely allows one selected response per cold-boot/primer state. - If `B2`, `B3`, `B4`, and `B5` all respond, one primer can unlock multiple sequential queries. - If some respond and some do not, there may be command-group or latch behavior. ### Test S2: Primer Before Every Query, No Power Cycle Purpose: test whether a new primer can re-arm another selected query without power-cycling. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB2 0x00 0xB3 0x00 0xB4 0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-reprimer-b2-b5.txt ``` Interpretation: - If every selected command responds, a primer is required before each query but power-cycling is not. - If only the first selected command responds, power-cycle or another reset-like command may be required to clear the latch. ### Test S3: Repeat Same Query With and Without Reprimer Purpose: test whether the same selected query can be repeated in one powered session. Without re-primer: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5 0xB5 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-no-reprimer.txt ``` Power-cycle, then with re-primer: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5 0x00 0xB5 0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-reprimer.txt ``` Interpretation: - If only the first `B5` responds in both tests, the response is one-shot until power cycle or a yet-unknown reset/ack command. - If the re-primer version responds repeatedly, the primer re-arms the selected query. ### 2026-05-13 Sequential Query Test Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-seq-one-primer-b2-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-seq-reprimer-b2-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-no-reprimer.txt` - `captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-reprimer.txt` Valid result: | Test | Intended sequence | Actual sequence sent | Result | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | S1 | `00 -> B2 -> B3 -> B4 -> B5` | `00 -> B2 -> B3 -> B4 -> B5` | only `B2` responded: `07 80 36 10 0C F7` | Tooling caveat: - The original `serial_direct_response_sweep.py` de-duplicated command lists. - Because of that, sequences containing repeated commands did not run as intended. - `S2`, `S3 no re-primer`, and `S3 re-primer` need to be rerun after the script fix. - The script has been updated to preserve repeated command values in explicit command lists. Interpretation from S1: - One primer did not unlock a whole list of feature/status queries. - After `00 -> B2` returned `07 80 36 10 0C F7`, later `B3`, `B4`, and `B5` in the same powered session did not produce additional non-heartbeat frames. - This supports a one-response latch model unless the re-primer test proves that the primer can re-arm another query. Rerun these tests after the script fix: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB2 0x00 0xB3 0x00 0xB4 0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-reprimer-b2-b5-v2.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5 0xB5 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-no-reprimer-v2.txt ``` Power-cycle, then: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0xB5 0x00 0xB5 0x00 0xB5" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --log captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-reprimer-v2.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Sequential Query Rerun Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-seq-reprimer-b2-b5-v2.txt` - `captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-no-reprimer-v2.txt` - `captures/rcp-seq-repeat-b5-reprimer-v2.txt` These reruns used the fixed `serial_direct_response_sweep.py`, which preserves repeated command values in explicit sequences. Results: | Test | Sequence | Non-heartbeat response(s) | | --- | --- | --- | | Re-primer between different queries | `00 -> B2 -> 00 -> B3 -> 00 -> B4 -> 00 -> B5` | only `B2`: `07 80 36 10 0C F7` | | Repeat `B5`, no re-primer | `00 -> B5 -> B5 -> B5` | only first `B5`: `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | | Repeat `B5`, re-primer each time | `00 -> B5 -> 00 -> B5 -> 00 -> B5` | only first `B5`: `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | Interpretation: - The RCP appears to allow only one selected query response per powered session in the current `CONNECT NOT ACT` state. - Sending another primer (`00 00 00 00 80 DA`) after the first response does not re-arm the query responder. - Repeating the same selected query does not produce another response. - This strongly suggests a one-shot discovery/status response followed by a required next-stage command, acknowledgement, reset, or activation step. Implication for CCU behavior: - The CCU may not scan a list of feature queries in the current state. It may send one discovery/status query, receive one response, then decide what activation/session command to send next. - Alternatively, additional feature reads may require an acknowledgement or state-advance command that has not yet been identified. Recommended next direction: - Stop broad feature scanning for the moment. - Search for the post-discovery acknowledgement/activation command that follows one known response such as `00 -> B5 => 07 80 6D 20 D8 48`. - Use a three-step pattern: ```text primer -> selected query -> candidate activation/ack command ``` Known reproducible setup: ```text Host -> RCP: 00 00 00 00 80 DA Host -> RCP: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F RCP -> Host: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 Host -> RCP: candidate next-stage command ``` ## Post-Discovery Candidate Sweep Use `scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py` to search for the command that comes after one known discovery/status response. This is the likely next stage after the one-shot response behavior. Default setup: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA query: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F RCP: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 then: candidate next-stage command ``` Recommended first post-discovery sweep: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x00-0x1F" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-00-1f.txt ``` For each candidate: 1. Power-cycle the RCP. 2. Wait for heartbeat/panel stable. 3. Press Enter at the prompt. 4. Watch for any screen change after the candidate frame. 5. Type the screen state if it changes, or press Enter for no visible change. Why this range first: - Earlier frame-length tests showed small command values can change screen state to `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - If a simple ACK/activation command exists, it may be in the low command range. Next ranges if `00-1F` does not change state: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x20-0x3F" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-20-3f.txt python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x80-0x9F" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-80-9f.txt python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB0-0xBF" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-b0-bf.txt ``` If any candidate changes the screen away from `CONNECT NOT ACT`, or produces a new RCP response after the candidate stage, retest that candidate alone with three fresh power cycles. ### 2026-05-13 Post-Discovery Sweep `00-1F` Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-00-1f.txt` Sweep setup: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA query: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F expected: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 candidate: 00-1F ``` Screen result: - Every candidate remained at `CONNECT NOT ACT` / `CONNECTION NOT ACT`. - No candidate in `0x00-0x1F` moved the panel into an active state. Serial result: - Most candidates produced only heartbeat-compatible traffic after the candidate frame. - Candidate windows for `0x00`, `0x0E`, `0x0F`, `0x1A`, `0x1E`, and `0x1F` included additional bytes matching the known discovery response `07 80 6D 20 D8 48`. - Those candidate-window anomalies are likely trailing/repeated discovery response frames from the `B5` query, not new candidate-specific responses. Notable outlier: - During candidate `0x03`, the primer read window contained `07 80 40 40 30 ED`, followed by heartbeat. - This is checksum-valid, but it occurred before the `B5` query in that test window. Treat it as an outlier until reproduced. Possible explanations include incomplete power-cycle reset, a previous state/latch edge, or an accidental timing artifact. Interpretation: - Low command range `0x00-0x1F` does not appear to contain the simple post-discovery activation command when tested after the `B5` discovery query. - The script's candidate read window can still catch residual discovery response frames; candidate anomalies must be checked against the known query response before treating them as new behavior. Recommended next sweep: Use a slightly longer query read window so the known discovery response has more time to finish before the candidate frame: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x20-0x3F" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-20-3f.txt ``` If `20-3F` also keeps the screen at `CONNECT NOT ACT`, continue: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x80-0x9F" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-80-9f.txt python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB0-0xBF" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-discovery-b5-candidates-b0-bf.txt ``` ## Post-Discovery Test Ladder Before manually sweeping every command byte, sample representative patterns from several command regions. The goal is to identify which command families are worth expanding. Use the same known discovery setup for each sample: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA query: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F RCP: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 then: sampled candidate command ``` Power-cycle before each candidate prompt. Type any screen change, otherwise press Enter. ### Ladder 1: Low-Range Sanity Sample The full `00-1F` sweep did not activate the panel, but one outlier appeared during the `0x03` test. Retest only representative low bytes plus the outlier: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x03 0x07 0x0F 0x10 0x1B 0x1F" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-low-sample.txt ``` What this checks: - `0x00`, `0x01`: no-op / ACK-like small commands. - `0x03`: the outlier run produced `07 80 40 40 30 ED`. - `0x07`, `0x0F`, `0x1F`: bit-mask/boundary values. - `0x10`, `0x1B`: response command-family values observed in RCP frames. ### Ladder 2: Response-Command Echo Sample Test host commands that match command bytes seen in RCP responses. If the CCU acknowledges or advances using related command IDs, these are good candidates. Observed RCP response command bytes so far: ```text 1B 36 40 6C 6D ``` Run: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x1B 0x36 0x40 0x6C 0x6D" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-response-cmds.txt ``` Expand only if one of these changes screen state or produces a new candidate-stage response. ### Ladder 3: Boundary and Bit-Pattern Sample This tests command bytes that often mark command classes, flags, or boundaries: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x20 0x2F 0x30 0x3F 0x40 0x4F 0x50 0x5F 0x7F 0x80 0x8F 0x90 0x9F 0xA0 0xAF 0xB0 0xBF 0xC0 0xCF 0xE0 0xEF 0xF0 0xFF" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-boundaries.txt ``` What this checks: - Nibble/region boundaries. - The high-bit transition at `0x80`. - Known discovery query region around `0xB0`. - High command space around `0xE0-0xFF`. ### Ladder 4: Known Query Region Sample The `B0` range is known to produce discovery/status responses when used as the selected query. It may also contain a next-stage command. ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB0 0xB1 0xB2 0xB3 0xB4 0xB5 0xB6 0xB7 0xB8 0xBF" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-b-region.txt ``` If any `B` candidate changes behavior, expand locally around it rather than sweeping the full byte space. ### Ladder 5: Alternate Discovery Response Bases If all candidate ladders after `00 -> B5` leave the screen at `CONNECT NOT ACT`, try the same sampled candidates after a different discovery query. Different RCP responses may expect different follow-up ACKs. Use `B2` discovery: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --query-command 0xB2 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x1B 0x36 0x40 0x6C 0x6D 0x80 0xB0 0xB5 0xFF" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-after-b2.txt ``` Use `B0` discovery: ```powershell python scripts/serial_post_discovery_sweep.py --port COM5 --query-command 0xB0 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x1B 0x36 0x40 0x6C 0x6D 0x80 0xB0 0xB5 0xFF" --after-query 2.0 --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-post-ladder-after-b0.txt ``` Interpretation: - If a candidate only works after one discovery response, the next-stage command may depend on the returned block. - If the same candidate works after multiple discovery responses, it is a stronger activation/ACK candidate. ### When to Expand Expand a region only when one of these occurs: - Screen changes away from `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - RCP sends a new candidate-stage frame that is not the known discovery response trailing into the candidate window. - The panel begins sending different heartbeat/status frames after the candidate. If none of the ladder samples produce a new behavior, stop command-byte guessing and test other frame fields for the candidate stage: state byte, value byte, or prefix bytes. ### 2026-05-13 Ladder 1 Result and Keepalive Hypothesis Capture: - `captures/rcp-post-ladder-low-sample.txt` Ladder 1 candidates: ```text 00 01 03 07 0F 10 1B 1F ``` Result: - Every sampled candidate left the screen at `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Candidate-stage RX was heartbeat-compatible for all candidates. - The earlier `0x03` outlier did not reproduce. - Query-stage response `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` reproduced reliably before each candidate. Interpretation: - The low/outlier sample did not find a post-discovery activation/ACK command. - `CONNECT NOT ACT` may be unrelated to a one-shot ACK. It may mean the RCP sees host traffic but is not receiving the correct ongoing CCU heartbeat/session cadence. Alternative working model: ```text Host sends discovery/status query RCP answers once Host must then send a sustained keepalive/session heartbeat RCP remains CONNECT NOT ACT until that heartbeat/cadence is correct ``` ### Keepalive After Discovery Tests Use `scripts/serial_keepalive_after_query.py` to test whether a sustained host heartbeat changes the RCP state after a known discovery response. Default setup: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA query: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F RCP reply: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 keepalive: repeated candidate frame ``` Test K1: repeat the known primer/heartbeat shape: ```powershell python scripts/serial_keepalive_after_query.py --port COM5 --keepalive-command 0x00 --duration 15 --interval 0.6 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-cmd00-600ms.txt ``` Test K2: repeat the zero-state frame: ```powershell python scripts/serial_keepalive_after_query.py --port COM5 --keepalive-frame "00 00 00 00 00 5A" --duration 15 --interval 0.6 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-zero-state-600ms.txt ``` Test K3: repeat the alternate state frame: ```powershell python scripts/serial_keepalive_after_query.py --port COM5 --keepalive-frame "00 00 00 80 00 DA" --duration 15 --interval 0.6 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-state80-600ms.txt ``` Test K4: faster primer/heartbeat cadence: ```powershell python scripts/serial_keepalive_after_query.py --port COM5 --keepalive-command 0x00 --duration 15 --interval 0.2 --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-cmd00-200ms.txt ``` Power-cycle before each keepalive test. Watch for: - Screen changing away from `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Pin 4 changing from heartbeat to another recurring status frame. - RCP controls beginning to transmit additional button/status data. ### 2026-05-13 Keepalive After Discovery Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-cmd00-600ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-zero-state-600ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-state80-600ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-keepalive-after-b5-cmd00-200ms.txt` Result: | Test | Keepalive frame | Cadence | Screen result | Pin 4 RX | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | K1 | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | 0.6 s | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat-compatible | | K2 | `00 00 00 00 00 5A` | 0.6 s | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat-compatible | | K3 | `00 00 00 80 00 DA` | 0.6 s | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat-compatible | | K4 | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | 0.2 s | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat-compatible | Interpretation: - A simple sustained host heartbeat after `00 -> B5` does not activate the RCP. - The RCP continues emitting only the known heartbeat-compatible stream on pin 4 during these keepalive attempts. - The correct next stage is probably not just "repeat the primer" or "hold a no-op frame at CCU cadence". - The better next branch is to map additional `primer -> request` commands that cause one-shot RCP responses. Those response blocks may reveal the command families, status bits, or identity data needed for the later activation step. Recommended next request sweep: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xB1 0xB6 0xB7 0xB8 0xB9 0xBA 0xBB 0xBC 0xBD 0xBE 0xBF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-b1-bf.txt ``` Power-cycle before each candidate prompt. This fills the gaps around the known `B0-B5` discovery/status region and checks whether `B8-BF` contain additional one-shot readable blocks. If this range is quiet, continue with neighboring command regions: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xA0-0xAF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-a0-af.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0xC0-0xCF" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-primer-sweep-c0-cf.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Primer Sweep A/B/C Region Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-primer-sweep-a0-af.txt` - `captures/rcp-primer-sweep-b1-bf.tx` - `captures/rcp-primer-sweep-c0-cf.txt` These sweeps used a fresh power cycle before each candidate, with the standard primer shape before the selected request: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA candidate: 00 00 CMD 00 80 CHECKSUM ``` New selected-command response map: | Selected command | Observed RCP response | | ---: | --- | | `A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | `A1` | `07 80 68 20 D8 4D` | | `A2` | `07 80 34 10 0C F5` | | `A3` | `07 80 34 10 2C D5` | | `A4` | `07 80 69 40 30 C4` | | `A5` | `07 80 69 20 D8 4C` | | `A6` | `07 80 1A 08 C6 09` | | `A7` | `07 80 1A 08 D6 19` | | `A8` | `07 80 6A 40 30 C7` | | `A9` | `07 80 6A 20 D8 4F` | | `AA` | `07 80 35 10 0C F4` | | `AB` | `07 80 35 10 2C D4` | | `AC` | `07 80 6B 40 30 C6` | | `AD` | `07 80 6B 20 D8 4E` | | `AE` | `07 80 0D 04 A3 77` | | `AF` | `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F` | | `B1` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` | | `B6` | `07 80 1B 08 C6 08` | | `B7` | `07 80 1B 08 F6 38` | | `B8` | `07 80 EE 40 30 43` | | `B9` | `07 80 6E 20 D8 4B` | | `BA` | `07 80 37 10 0C F6` | | `BB` | `07 80 37 10 2C D6` | | `BC` | `07 80 EF 40 30 42` | | `BD` | `07 80 6F 20 D8 4A` | | `BE` | heartbeat only | | `BF` | heartbeat only | | `C0` | heartbeat only | | `C1` | `07 80 70 20 D8 55` | | `C2` | `07 80 38 10 0C F9` | | `C3` | `07 80 38 10 2C D9` | | `C4` | `07 80 71 40 30 DC` | | `C5` | `07 80 71 20 D8 54` | | `C6` | `07 80 1C 08 C6 0F` | | `C7` | `07 80 1C 08 D6 1F` | | `C8` | `07 80 72 40 30 DF` | | `C9` | `07 80 72 20 D8 57` | | `CA` | `07 80 39 10 0C F8` | | `CB` | `07 80 39 10 2C D8` | | `CC` | `07 80 F3 40 30 5E` | | `CD` | `07 80 73 20 D8 56` | | `CE` | `07 80 0E 04 A3 74` | | `CF` | `07 80 0E 04 AB 7C` | Interpretation: - The RCP has a much larger one-shot readable status/query surface than first assumed. - The `A0-CF` region looks highly structured. Most commands return stable six-byte responses with the same `07 80` prefix and valid XOR checksum. - Pairs often share a response command byte and differ in state/value fields: `A0/A1`, `A2/A3`, `A4/A5`, `A6/A7`, and similar patterns continue through the `B` and `C` regions. - `BE`, `BF`, and `C0` are current no-response candidates in this mapping. - This strongly supports a discovery/status table model: the CCU may read a specific set of one-shot blocks, then choose a later activation/session command based on the returned table values. ### 2026-05-13 Paused Direct Sweep Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-direct-remaining-after-b5-pause.txt` The paused direct sweep logged anomalies and then allowed a manual power cycle before continuing. Because the script continues with the next command after the pause, this run is useful for finding response-producing commands, but it is not a clean `00 -> B5 -> candidate` post-discovery sweep. Response hits observed in this run: | Command at anomaly | Observed RCP response | Caution | | ---: | --- | --- | | `B5` | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | expected known query response | | `40` | `07 80 50 40 30 FD` | repeated twice in this run | | `6D` | `07 80 5B 20 D8 7E` | may depend on prior `6C` | | `4F` | `07 80 0A 04 AB 78` | needs clean one-per-boot confirmation | | `8F` | `07 80 0C 04 AB 7E` | may depend on prior sequence | | `A0` | `07 80 E8 40 30 45` | differs from primer-sweep `A0` response | | `B0` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` | known response | | `CF` | `07 80 0E 04 AB 7C` | matches primer-sweep `CF` response | | `EF` | `07 80 0F 04 EB 3D` | needs clean one-per-boot confirmation | | `B1` | `07 80 6C 20 D8 49` | known response | | `B3` | `07 80 36 10 2C D7` | known response | | `B6` | `07 80 1B 08 C6 08` | known response | | `B8` | `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` | differs from primer-sweep `B8` response | | `BA` | `07 80 37 10 0C F6` | matches primer-sweep `BA` response | | `BC` | `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` | differs from primer-sweep `BC` response | Next confirmations: - Retest `40`, `4F`, `8F`, `EF`, and the differing `A0/B8/BC` cases as clean one-per-boot primer pairs. - If a response differs between a plain/direct command and a primer-pair query, treat the first host frame as a mode/context selector rather than only a generic wake-up primer. ## Context Selector Confirmation Tests Goal: confirm whether the first host frame is only a generic primer, or whether it selects a response page/context for the next command. The test method is to hold the second/query command constant and change only the first frame: ```text selector/primer -> selected query ``` Strong confirmation: - Same selected query, different first frame, different RCP response. - Example pattern: `00 -> B8` returns one block while `B7 -> B8` returns a different block. Weak or negative result: - Same selected query always returns the same block regardless of the first frame. - The differing blocks from the paused direct sweep were caused by longer sequence/timing effects rather than a two-frame selector. ### Test CS1: Known Generic `00` Page This rechecks the current generic-primer page for the commands that had different-looking responses in the paused direct sweep. ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0x00 --candidates "0xA0 0xB8 0xBC" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-selector-00-a0-b8-bc.txt ``` Expected from prior primer sweeps: | Pair | Expected response | | --- | --- | | `00 -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | `00 -> B8` | `07 80 EE 40 30 43` | | `00 -> BC` | `07 80 EF 40 30 42` | ### Test CS2: Suspected Alternate Selectors These test the pairings implied by the paused direct sweep. Power-cycle before each prompt. ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0x9F --candidates 0xA0 --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-selector-9f-a0.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0xB7 --candidates 0xB8 --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-selector-b7-b8.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0xBB --candidates 0xBC --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-selector-bb-bc.txt python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0xAF --candidates 0xB0 --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-selector-af-b0.txt ``` Compare against these paused/direct observations: | Pair under test | Context hypothesis if reproduced | | --- | --- | | `9F -> A0` | `A0` may return `07 80 E8 40 30 45` after selector `9F`. | | `B7 -> B8` | `B8` may return `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` after selector `B7`. | | `BB -> BC` | `BC` may return `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` after selector `BB`. | | `AF -> B0` | `B0` may return `07 80 6C 60 30 E1` after selector `AF`. | ### Test CS3: Check for Three-Frame Context The paused sweep's `A0` response happened after `90` and `9F` had both been sent in the same powered session. If `9F -> A0` does not reproduce the alternate `A0` block, try the full three-frame setup: ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x90 0x9F 0xA0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --after 3 --log captures/rcp-context-seq-90-9f-a0.txt ``` Power-cycle once before this test and do not power-cycle until the script exits. Interpretation: - If `9F -> A0` reproduces `07 80 E8 40 30 45`, a two-frame selector is likely. - If only `90 -> 9F -> A0` reproduces it, the context/page setup may require multiple host frames. - If neither reproduces it, treat the paused direct `A0` response as a sequence/timing artifact until another capture confirms it. ### Optional Single-Frame Controls These check whether the candidate can respond as the first frame after boot. ```powershell python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xA0 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 1.5 --after 2 --log captures/rcp-context-single-a0.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xB8 --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 1.5 --after 2 --log captures/rcp-context-single-b8.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands 0xBC --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 1.5 --after 2 --log captures/rcp-context-single-bc.txt ``` Power-cycle before each single-frame control. ### 2026-05-13 Context Selector Dataset Results New captures: - `captures/rcp-context-selector-00-a0-b8-bc.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-selector-9f-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-selector-b7-b8.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-selector-bb-bc.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-selector-af-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-seq-90-9f-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-single-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-single-b8.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-single-bc.txt` Observed results: | Test | Sequence | Observed response | | --- | --- | --- | | CS1 | `00 -> A0` | `07 80 E8 40 30 45` | | CS1 | `00 -> B8` | `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` | | CS1 | `00 -> BC` | `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` | | CS2 | `9F -> A0` | heartbeat only | | CS2 | `B7 -> B8` | `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` | | CS2 | `BB -> BC` | `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` | | CS2 | `AF -> B0` | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` | | CS3 | `90 -> 9F -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | Single-frame control | `A0` | heartbeat only | | Single-frame control | `B8` | heartbeat only | | Single-frame control | `BC` | heartbeat only | Important comparison against earlier sweeps: | Selected query | Earlier primer sweep response | New `00 -> query` response | | ---: | --- | --- | | `A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | `07 80 E8 40 30 45` | | `B8` | `07 80 EE 40 30 43` | `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` | | `BC` | `07 80 EF 40 30 42` | `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` | Interpretation: - Single `A0`, `B8`, and `BC` frames after boot produced heartbeat only, so these responses require prior host traffic. - The response is not determined only by the selected query command. The same selected query can produce different response blocks in different setup contexts. - `B7 -> B8` and `BB -> BC` reproduced the alternate `B8`/`BC` responses seen in the paused direct sweep. - `90 -> 9F -> A0` reproduced the earlier `A0` response `07 80 68 40 30 C5`, while `9F -> A0` alone produced no response. - `00 -> A0` now produced the alternate `A0` response `07 80 E8 40 30 45`, so the `00` first frame is not always a simple deterministic "generic primer" in the current bench state. - The evidence now favors a stateful/page-sensitive discovery model rather than a single fixed primer model. Working model after these datasets: ```text Host sends one or more setup/selector frames. RCP arms one readable response. The next selected query returns a block from the currently selected page/state. After that response, the RCP latches until power cycle or an unknown reset/state advance command. ``` Recommended next confirmation: 1. Repeat `00 -> A0`, `00 -> B8`, and `00 -> BC` once more after clean power cycles to see whether the alternate page is now stable. 2. Repeat `90 -> 9F -> A0` once more to confirm the earlier page can be selected reliably. 3. Test whether `90 -> A0` alone selects the earlier page, or whether `9F` is also required. 4. Test whether `00 -> 9F -> A0` behaves like `90 -> 9F -> A0`, which would suggest `9F` is the real selector and `90` is only a setup/arming frame. Suggested commands: ```powershell python scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py --port COM5 --primer-command 0x00 --candidates "0xA0 0xB8 0xBC" --prompt-power-cycle --log captures/rcp-context-repeat-00-a0-b8-bc.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x90 0x9F 0xA0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --after 3 --log captures/rcp-context-repeat-90-9f-a0.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x90 0xA0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --after 3 --log captures/rcp-context-seq-90-a0.txt python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --commands "0x00 0x9F 0xA0" --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3 --after-each 0.8 --after 3 --log captures/rcp-context-seq-00-9f-a0.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Context Confirmation Result New captures: - `captures/rcp-context-repeat-00-a0-b8-bc.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-repeat-90-9f-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-seq-90-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-seq-00-9f-a0.txt` Observed results: | Test | Sequence | Observed response | | --- | --- | --- | | Repeat `00` page | `00 -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | Repeat `00` page | `00 -> B8` | `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` | | Repeat `00` page | `00 -> BC` | `07 80 6F 40 30 C2` | | Repeat three-frame A0 | `90 -> 9F -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | A0 with `90` only | `90 -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | A0 with `00` then `9F` | `00 -> 9F -> A0` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | Updated interpretation: - `90 -> A0` is enough to produce the `A0` response `07 80 68 40 30 C5`; `9F` is not required for that page. - `00 -> 9F -> A0` also produces `07 80 68 40 30 C5`, so a frame before `9F` can arm the response, but `9F` does not appear to select the alternate `A0` response by itself. - The repeat `00 -> A0` result returned to `07 80 68 40 30 C5`, while the previous `00 -> A0` context dataset returned `07 80 E8 40 30 45`. Treat the `E8` response as real but not yet deterministic from the current two-frame model. - `00 -> B8` and `00 -> BC` remained stable as `07 80 6E 40 30 C3` and `07 80 6F 40 30 C2`, matching the earlier alternate-page observations. Current best model: ```text The RCP requires at least one setup frame before many query commands respond. Some setup/query pairs are stable, for example 90 -> A0 and 00 -> B8. Some response differences are still not explained by only the immediately preceding frame, so a hidden boot/session/state bit or timing-sensitive page selection may also be involved. ``` Next useful tests: 1. Retest `00 -> A0` several times in a row with a power cycle before each run to measure whether `68` or `E8` is the dominant response. 2. Try direct pairs for the observed alternate `B8/BC` family: `B8 -> B9`, `BC -> BD`, and `BD -> BE`. 3. Sweep the `D0-DF` region with the same primer-pair method to see whether the structured discovery table continues after `CF`. ## Unlatch / State-Advance Sweep Goal: intentionally put the RCP into the known one-response latched state, send a wide set of possible reset/ack/state-advance commands, then verify whether a known query can respond again without a power cycle. Use `scripts/serial_unlatch_sweep.py`. For each candidate it performs: ```text latch primer -> latch query -> candidate unlatch command -> verify primer -> verify query ``` Default latch and verify sequence: ```text 00 -> B5 produces known response: 07 80 6D 20 D8 48 candidate possible unlatch / state advance command 00 -> B5 verify whether the known response can happen again ``` Interpretation: - If the verify query returns heartbeat only, the candidate did not unlatch the one-response state. - If the verify query returns `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` again, the candidate likely cleared or advanced the latch. - If the candidate itself changes the LCD or produces a new serial response, log it as a possible state-advance command even if the verify query does not respond. First wide assortment, focused on known response command families, boundaries, and current no-response gaps: ```powershell python scripts/serial_unlatch_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x03 0x07 0x0A 0x0C 0x0D 0x0E 0x0F 0x10 0x1A 0x1B 0x1C 0x20 0x30 0x36 0x38 0x39 0x40 0x4F 0x50 0x5B 0x68 0x6C 0x6D 0x6E 0x6F 0x70 0x7F 0x80 0x8F 0x90 0x9F 0xA0 0xAF 0xB0 0xB5 0xB8 0xBC 0xBE 0xBF 0xC0 0xCF 0xD0 0xDF 0xE0 0xEF 0xF0 0xFF" --expected-verify-response "07 80 6D 20 D8 48" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-unlatch-wide-after-b5.txt ``` Power-cycle before each prompt. For the screen prompt: - Press Enter if the screen stayed the same. - Type the exact screen text if it changes. - Type `q` to stop. If this finds no verify responses, try the same idea after a different latch query page: ```powershell python scripts/serial_unlatch_sweep.py --port COM5 --latch-query-command 0xA0 --verify-query-command 0xA0 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x0F 0x10 0x1A 0x1B 0x40 0x4F 0x68 0x6C 0x80 0x8F 0x90 0x9F 0xA0 0xB0 0xB8 0xBC 0xC0 0xCF 0xE0 0xEF 0xFF" --expected-verify-response "07 80 68 40 30 C5" --prompt-power-cycle --prompt-screen --log captures/rcp-unlatch-wide-after-a0.txt ``` For a fast dry run without touching the serial port: ```powershell python scripts/serial_unlatch_sweep.py --port COM5 --candidates "0x00 0x01 0x90" --dry-run ``` ### 2026-05-13 Unlatch Sweep Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-unlatch-wide-after-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-unlatch-wide-after-a0.txt` User observation: - No visible RCP state change was seen during the tests. - The only screen note recorded in the logs was `CONNECT NOT ACT` after candidate `0x00`, which matches the already-known non-active connected state. Serial result: | Latch/verify query | Candidates tested | Expected verify response | Result | | --- | ---: | --- | --- | | `B5` | 49 | `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` | no confirmed unlatch | | `A0` | 23 | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | no confirmed unlatch | Notes: - Candidate `0xBF` in the `B5` unlatch sweep produced a verify-query anomaly, but the raw bytes were `00 00 00 00 00 00 80 DA`, not the expected `07 80 6D 20 D8 48`. Treat this as a heartbeat/chunking/classifier artifact, not a successful unlatch. - No candidate-stage serial response clearly indicated a state advance. - The broad command-byte assortment did not find a reset/ack/unlatch command in the tested six-byte frame shape. Tooling update: - `scripts/serial_unlatch_sweep.py` now accepts `--expected-verify-response`. - Future unlatch sweeps should use this option so only the desired repeated query response counts as a hit. ## PT2/PT7 Compatibility Clue Manual-derived note from a newer Sony RCP: - A newer Sony RCP has a mode switch with `PT2` and `PT7` positions. - `PT2` is documented for controlling the same camera line that the RCP-TX7 is associated with. Working implication: - The TX7 may be a fixed/PT2-era protocol personality rather than a generic Sony RCP protocol endpoint. - If the CCU/RCP protocol family later split into PT2 and PT7 modes, then our current frame shape may be electrically correct but still missing a personality/mode/session assumption. - The command bytes that look like "page selectors" may be table reads within the PT2 personality rather than an activation handshake. Next direction from this clue: 1. Treat PT2 compatibility as the default target for TX7 restoration tests. 2. Search newer-RCP manuals for whether PT2/PT7 is only a physical switch or whether either mode has visible initialization, connect, or model-detect behavior. 3. Prefer tests that emulate a CCU already speaking the TX7/PT2 personality, rather than trying PT7-style/high-range activation guesses. ## Button Behavior While Latched Open questions: 1. Does the one-response latched state suppress the RCP-origin button frames that are known to appear while disconnected? 2. If the RCP sends `CAM POWER`, does an immediate host-side response using the same or a similar command shape change the RCP state? Known RCP-origin button frames: | Button/action | RCP frame | | --- | --- | | Idle heartbeat | `00 00 00 00 80 DA` | | `CAM POWER` | `00 00 07 80 00 DD` | | `CALL` on/state high | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` | | `CALL` off/state low | `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | Use `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` for these tests. It keeps RX and TX in the same serial session, so it works around Windows COM-port exclusivity. ### Test BTN1: Offline Button Control Purpose: establish a fresh control capture where the RCP is not intentionally latched. During the listen window, press `CAM POWER` a few times and press/release `CALL`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --log captures/rcp-buttons-offline-control.txt ``` Expected: - `CAM POWER` should produce `00 00 07 80 00 DD`. - `CALL` should produce one or both `00 00 15 80 00 CF` and `00 00 15 00 00 4F`. ### Test BTN2: Latched Button Emission Purpose: put the RCP into the known `00 -> B5` latched state, then see whether `CAM POWER` and `CALL` still produce RCP-origin frames. During the listen window, press the same buttons as BTN1. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --latch --latch-query-command 0xB5 --duration 30 --prompt --log captures/rcp-buttons-latched-after-b5.txt ``` Interpretation: - If `CAM POWER`/`CALL` frames still appear, the latch suppresses selected query responses but does not suppress basic panel-origin button events. - If button frames disappear, the latch may be closer to a protocol/session hold state that blocks some panel event transmission. ### Test BTN3: Respond to `CAM POWER` With Exact Echo Purpose: when the RCP sends the `CAM POWER` frame, immediately send the same six-byte frame back on the host-to-RCP line. Watch the screen for any visible change. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-cam-power --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 07 80 00 DD" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cam-power-exact-echo.txt ``` At the prompt, press `CAM POWER` once. If the screen changes, note the exact display text after the run. ### Test BTN4: Respond to `CAM POWER` With Host-Shaped Variant Purpose: test a related command-shaped host frame where command `0x07` is kept but the `0x80` bit is in the value field, matching the host-query shape used in many discovery tests. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-cam-power --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 07 00 80 DD" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cam-power-host-shaped.txt ``` Interpretation: - If exact echo changes nothing but the host-shaped variant changes the screen or serial stream, the RCP may expect host responses in the same command class but with host-side state/value layout. - If neither changes anything, `CAM POWER` may be an outbound event requiring a larger CCU state/session response rather than a direct ACK. Optional latched version of BTN3: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --latch --latch-query-command 0xB5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-cam-power --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 07 80 00 DD" --log captures/rcp-buttons-latched-cam-power-exact-echo.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Button Test Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-offline-control.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-latched-after-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cam-power-exact-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cam-power-host-shaped.txt` Offline control: - `CALL` produced `00 00 15 80 00 CF` and `00 00 15 00 00 4F`. - `CAM POWER` produced `00 00 07 80 00 DD`. - This matches the original offline button observations. Latched after `00 -> B5`: - The latch setup produced the known `B5` response `07 80 6D 20 D8 48`. - While in this state, `CALL` still produced both known call frames. - While in this state, `CAM POWER` still produced `00 00 07 80 00 DD`. Interpretation: - The one-response latch suppresses additional selected-query responses, but it does not suppress basic RCP-origin button/event frames. - The panel is still actively reporting front-panel events after the discovery response/latch state. `CAM POWER` response tests: | Test | Host response sent after `CAM POWER` | Screen result | Serial result | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | BTN3 exact echo | `00 00 07 80 00 DD` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat/button-event only | | BTN4 host-shaped | `00 00 07 00 80 DD` | `CONNECT NOT ACT` | heartbeat only after response | Interpretation: - Both `CAM POWER` response shapes are recognized enough to produce the familiar `CONNECT NOT ACT` display state. - Neither response advanced the RCP into an active state or caused a new serial status stream. - `CAM POWER` is likely an outbound event that requires broader CCU/session context, not a simple one-frame ACK. Next useful button-side tests: 1. Repeat BTN3/BTN4 while already latched after `00 -> B5`; this checks whether the same `CAM POWER` response has different meaning after the RCP has already returned a discovery block. 2. Try responding to `CALL` with exact echo and host-shaped command `0x15` variants, since earlier `0x15` matrix tests changed the screen but did not activate the panel. 3. If a future session/keepalive candidate is found, rerun BTN1/BTN2 to see whether more front-panel controls begin emitting serial events in an active context. ### CALL Echo / Response Tests Goal: test whether the RCP treats `CALL` differently from `CAM POWER` when the host immediately echoes or acknowledges the outbound button event. Known RCP-origin `CALL` frames: ```text CALL high/on: 00 00 15 80 00 CF CALL low/off: 00 00 15 00 00 4F ``` Test BTN5: exact echo of both known `CALL` shapes. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo.txt ``` Test BTN6: host-shaped `CALL` response, with command `0x15` and value `0x80`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 00 80 CF" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-host-shaped.txt ``` Test BTN7: host-shaped `CALL` response after the known `00 -> B5` latch. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --latch --latch-query-command 0xB5 --duration 30 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 00 80 CF" --log captures/rcp-buttons-latched-call-host-shaped.txt ``` During each test, press and release `CALL` once or twice. Record any screen change after the run. ### 2026-05-13 CALL Echo Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-host-shaped.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-latched-call-host-shaped.txt` User observation: - All three CALL response tests ended with the RCP screen at `CONNECT NOT ACT`. Serial result: | Test | Host response after `CALL` | Serial result | | --- | --- | --- | | BTN5 exact echo | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` then `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | RCP sent `07 80 45 20 D0 68` once, then returned to heartbeat/CALL events | | BTN6 host-shaped | `00 00 15 00 80 CF` | heartbeat/CALL events only | | BTN7 latched host-shaped | `00 00 15 00 80 CF` after latch setup | heartbeat/CALL events only | Interpretation: - Exact CALL echo is more interesting than CAM POWER echo: it produced a new checksum-valid RCP response frame, `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. - The new frame did not visibly activate the RCP; the panel still ended at `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - The host-shaped `CALL` response did not reproduce the new frame, either offline or after the `B5` latch setup. - This suggests the RCP has at least one event-response path for CALL exact echo, but that response is still not the missing active-session handshake. Next CALL-focused checks: 1. Retest exact CALL echo three times with clean power cycles to see whether `07 80 45 20 D0 68` is repeatable. 2. Test echoing only `CALL high/on` and only `CALL low/off` separately to see which of the two echoed frames causes `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. 3. Try using `07 80 45 20 D0 68` as a follow-up host frame after CALL exact echo, only after confirming repeatability. ### Real-World CALL Hold/Release Test Goal: mimic how CALL would likely work in use: ```text User holds CALL -> RCP sends CALL high/on Host responds high -> host echoes/acknowledges CALL high/on User releases CALL -> RCP sends CALL low/off Host responds low -> host echoes/acknowledges CALL low/off ``` Test BTN8: mirror CALL high and low once per state. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --mirror-call --mirror-call-once-per-state --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-mirror-hold-release.txt ``` Procedure: 1. Power-cycle the RCP. 2. Start the command and press Enter at the prompt. 3. Hold `CALL` for about 2 seconds. 4. Release `CALL`. 5. Watch whether the screen changes and note the final screen text. Interpretation: - If the RCP again sends `07 80 45 20 D0 68`, the frame is likely part of the CALL response path. - If the screen still ends at `CONNECT NOT ACT`, this mirrors CALL signaling but still does not satisfy the active-session handshake. Optional latched version: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --latch --latch-query-command 0xB5 --duration 30 --prompt --mirror-call --mirror-call-once-per-state --log captures/rcp-buttons-latched-call-mirror-hold-release.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Latched CALL Mirror Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-buttons-latched-call-mirror-hold-release.txt` The capture contains three appended latched runs. Each run sent the `00 -> B5` latch setup, then mirrored observed CALL high/low events with the matching CALL frame. Observed result: - The RCP still emitted CALL high/low frames while latched. - The mirror script sent `CALL high mirror` and/or `CALL low mirror` responses as expected. - No run reproduced the earlier exact-echo response `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. - Serial output returned to heartbeat/CALL event traffic. Interpretation: - The earlier `07 80 45 20 D0 68` response appears tied to sending both CALL echo frames immediately after CALL high, not to a realistic held/released CALL mirror sequence. - Mirroring CALL state while latched does not appear to activate or unlatch the RCP. - The latched state continues to allow front-panel CALL events to be transmitted. Tooling note: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now clears the serial input buffer immediately after the manual prompt. This avoids stale frames collected while waiting at the prompt contaminating button timing in future hold/release tests. Clean non-latched repeat, if needed: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 30 --prompt --mirror-call --mirror-call-once-per-state --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-mirror-hold-release.txt ``` ### CALL Exact-Echo Reproducibility Test Goal: determine whether the new frame `07 80 45 20 D0 68` is reproducible when using the artificial exact-CALL echo that originally produced it. Test BTN9: repeat exact CALL echo and explicitly watch for `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-1.txt ``` Run the same command three times, changing only the log filename: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-2.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-3.txt ``` Procedure for each run: 1. Power-cycle the RCP. 2. Start the command and press Enter at the prompt. 3. Press `CALL` once. 4. Stop after the script exits, then power-cycle before the next run. Interpretation: - If `Watch totals: 07 80 45 20 D0 68=1` appears consistently, the frame is a reproducible response to artificial exact CALL echo. - If it appears intermittently, timing or current panel state is probably part of the trigger. - If it does not appear, the original hit may have depended on a very specific press/release timing or buffered frame ordering. ### 2026-05-13 CALL Exact-Echo Repro Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-1.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-2.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-repro-3.txt` All three runs detected `CALL` high/on and sent the same exact echo pair: ```text 00 00 15 80 00 CF 00 00 15 00 00 4F ``` Observed serial result: | Run | Result | | --- | --- | | repro 1 | random assortment of button presses; no `07 80 45 20 D0 68`; returned to heartbeat/CALL traffic | | repro 2 | press-and-hold `CALL`; `07 80 45 20 D0 68` observed once, about 33 ms after the echo pair | | repro 3 | quick `CALL` press only; no `07 80 45 20 D0 68`; returned to heartbeat traffic | Interpretation: - The `07 80 45 20 D0 68` frame is reproducible, but appears sensitive to physical CALL timing. It has now been seen in the original exact-echo test and in the press-and-hold repro run. - Because each run sent the same two response frames after `CALL` high, the strongest current hypothesis is that CALL must remain asserted briefly after the host echo pair. - Receive buffer alignment or an internal RCP state bit may still be involved, but the quick-press miss and press-and-hold hit make button hold duration the next variable to isolate. - This frame is still best treated as a CALL/event-response clue, not as an activation handshake. Next tighter CALL tests: 1. Echo only `CALL high/on`. 2. Echo only `CALL low/off`. 3. Repeat the two-frame exact echo while deliberately holding CALL until the script has logged either the watch frame or the next heartbeat. 4. Repeat the two-frame exact echo with shorter and longer response delays. High-only echo: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-high-only-echo.txt ``` Low-only echo: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-low-only-echo.txt ``` Two-frame echo with a shorter response delay: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.0 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-0ms.txt ``` Two-frame echo with a longer response delay: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.2 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-200ms.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 CALL Hold Timing Tests Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-high-only-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-low-only-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-0ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-200ms.txt` User procedure: - All four tests used a roughly 2 second hold on the `CALL` button. Observed result: | Test | Host response | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | high-only echo | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` after CALL high | no `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | low-only echo | `00 00 15 00 00 4F` after CALL high | no `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | exact echo, 0 ms delay | high echo then low echo immediately | no `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | exact echo, 200 ms delay | high echo then low echo after 200 ms response delay | no `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | Interpretation: - Holding `CALL` alone is not sufficient to reproduce `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. - Echoing only one of the two CALL states is not sufficient in these tests. - The previous successful repro used the two-frame exact echo with the script's default 50 ms response delay. The failed 0 ms and 200 ms runs suggest the timing window may be narrower than expected, or the frame depends on a second uncontrolled variable. - Current best hypothesis: `07 80 45 20 D0 68` requires the exact two-frame CALL echo pair near the default delay timing, with CALL still asserted. Next timing-bracket test: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.02 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-20ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-50ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.08 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-80ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.12 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-120ms.txt ``` For each run, power-cycle first, press and hold `CALL` for about 2 seconds, then release after either the watch frame appears or the next heartbeat appears. ### 2026-05-13 CALL Timing-Bracket Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-20ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-50ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-80ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-120ms.txt` User procedure: - Each run used the same two-frame exact CALL echo pair. - Button hold timing was kept as accurate and consistent as possible. Observed result: | Delay | Result | | --- | --- | | 20 ms | heartbeat only; no `0x45` response | | 50 ms | heartbeat/CALL traffic only; no `0x45` response | | 80 ms | new response `07 80 45 30 D0 78` | | 120 ms | heartbeat/CALL traffic only; no `0x45` response | Comparison of known CALL-response-family frames: ```text 07 80 45 20 D0 68 07 80 45 30 D0 78 ``` Both frames are checksum-valid under the current XOR-with-`0x5A` hypothesis. They share prefix `07 80`, command/status byte `45`, and value byte `D0`. The state/status byte changed from `20` to `30`, with the checksum changing from `68` to `78` as expected. Interpretation: - The RCP appears to have a CALL-related `0x45` response family. - The observed `0x45` response is timing-sensitive but not locked only to the original 50 ms response delay. - The `0x20` vs `0x30` byte may represent a CALL/button substate, link/session substate, or timing/window state. - This is stronger evidence that the panel is responding meaningfully to host traffic, even though the LCD state still has not been driven active. Next CALL timing tests should watch both known `0x45` family frames: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.06 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-60ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.07 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-70ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.08 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-80ms-v2.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.09 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-90ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.10 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-100ms.txt ``` If the `0x45` family repeats in the 60-100 ms window, the next step is to test whether the host can answer the RCP's `0x45` response with a checksum-valid host-shaped frame using command byte `0x45`. Tooling note: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now supports `--followup-on-watch-frame` with one or more `--followup-frame` values. This lets the host answer a reproduced RCP response immediately in the same run. Possible follow-up test after reproducing a `0x45` response: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.08 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 45 00 80 9F" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-host-shaped.txt ``` This test is deliberately secondary. Run it only after the `0x45` family repeats, so any change can be attributed to the follow-up rather than to the initial CALL echo timing. ### 2026-05-13 CALL 60-100 ms Repeat Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-60ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-70ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-80ms-v2.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-90ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-exact-echo-delay-100ms.txt` Observed result: | Delay | Result | | --- | --- | | 60 ms | no `0x45` response | | 70 ms | no `0x45` response | | 80 ms repeat | no `0x45` response | | 90 ms | no `0x45` response | | 100 ms | no `0x45` response | Interpretation: - The `07 80 45 30 D0 78` response from the earlier 80 ms run did not repeat in the 80 ms repeat or nearby 60-100 ms bracket. - The trigger is not controlled by the simple delay between CALL high detection and the two-frame echo pair alone. - A more likely variable is the spacing between the host's CALL-high echo and CALL-low echo, or the RCP's internal heartbeat/call-scan phase when the echo pair arrives. Next test direction: - Keep the initial response delay fixed near the values that have produced hits before, but vary the spacing between the two echoed CALL frames. Tooling note: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now supports `--response-frame-interval`, which inserts a delay between multiple `--response-frame` values sent for the same observed button event. Inter-frame timing ladder: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.02 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-20ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-50ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.08 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-80ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.08 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-delay-80ms-frame-gap-50ms.txt ``` For each run, power-cycle first and use the same roughly 2 second CALL hold. ### 2026-05-13 CALL Inter-Frame Gap Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-20ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-50ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-frame-gap-80ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-delay-80ms-frame-gap-50ms.txt` Observed result: | Initial delay | Gap between host CALL echoes | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | 50 ms | 20 ms | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | 50 ms | 50 ms | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | 50 ms | 80 ms | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | 80 ms | 50 ms | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | Interpretation: - `07 80 45 20 D0 68` is now reproducible. - The key change was adding a gap between the host's CALL-high echo and CALL-low echo. Earlier tests sent the two response frames back-to-back. - The exact gap is not especially narrow; 20 ms, 50 ms, and 80 ms all worked in this run set. - The RCP likely needs to process the high echo as one event before receiving the low echo. Sending high and low in one tight burst can land outside that event path. - The `0x45` response is still not known to activate the panel, but it is a real, reproducible event-response path. Next step: answer the reproducible `0x45` response in the same run. Test F1: host-shaped generic `0x45` ACK. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 45 00 80 9F" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-generic-ack.txt ``` Test F2: host-shaped echo of the RCP `0x45` payload. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 45 20 D0 EF" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-payload-echo.txt ``` Test F3: exact echo of the RCP `0x45` response frame. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-exact-echo.txt ``` For each follow-up test, note whether the LCD changes, whether more serial data appears after the follow-up, and whether the panel returns to heartbeat only. ### 2026-05-13 CALL `0x45` Follow-Up Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-generic-ack.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-payload-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-exact-echo.txt` Observed result: | Test | Follow-up sent after `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | Serial result | | --- | --- | --- | | F1 generic ACK | `00 00 45 00 80 9F` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | F2 payload echo | `00 00 45 20 D0 EF` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | F3 exact echo | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | heartbeat only after follow-up | Notes: - F1 and F2 reproduced the normal CALL-high echo path, then sent the follow-up frame after the RCP emitted `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. - F3 still reproduced `07 80 45 20 D0 68`, but the triggering CALL event was captured as a split CALL-off frame rather than a clean CALL-on log line. The script's rolling buffer still recognized the frame and sent the configured responses. - None of the three follow-up shapes caused a visible serial-side state change in the captured data. After the follow-up, the RCP returned to heartbeat. Interpretation: - The `0x45` frame is likely an RCP-origin response/notification in the CALL event path, but these simple host answers are not the missing activation handshake. - The panel may not expect a direct answer to `0x45`, or the answer needs more session context than a single command frame. - Since `0x45` can be produced from the CALL-off side too, the RCP may be responding to a CALL state transition sequence rather than specifically to CALL high. Next direction: - Use the reproducible CALL echo/gap sequence as a diagnostic, but return to the main activation problem: what host/session traffic makes the RCP leave `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Test whether a known discovery query still works immediately after the CALL `0x45` path, and whether CALL `0x45` changes the one-shot/latch behavior. CALL then discovery query: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --respond-to-call --respond-once --response-delay 0.05 --response-frame-interval 0.05 --response-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --response-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --followup-frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-discovery-b5.txt ``` If this produces the known `B5` response `07 80 6D 20 D8 48`, then the CALL path does not consume the one-shot discovery response. If it returns heartbeat only, CALL/`0x45` may put the RCP into a similar one-shot consumed state. ### 2026-05-13 CALL `0x45` Then Discovery Result Capture: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-45-followup-discovery-b5.txt` Observed sequence: ```text RCP CALL high: 00 00 15 80 00 CF Host CALL high echo: 00 00 15 80 00 CF Host CALL low echo: 00 00 15 00 00 4F RCP CALL response: 07 80 45 20 D0 68 Host primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA Host B5 query: 00 00 B5 00 80 6F ``` Result: - After the follow-up `00 -> B5` query, the RCP returned heartbeat-compatible traffic only. - The known `B5` response `07 80 6D 20 D8 48` did not appear. Interpretation: - The CALL/`0x45` path does not unlock the known discovery query. - It may consume or bypass the same cold one-shot discovery window, or the RCP may simply ignore discovery-style queries once the CALL event path has been exercised. - This pushes the CALL path into the "useful diagnostic but probably not the activation handshake" bucket. ### Cold No-Button CALL Injection Tests Question: have we tried sending the CALL response frames without first pressing the `CALL` button? Answer: partially, but not in the exact form that now matters. - Earlier command `0x15` matrix tests sent individual `0x15` frames from a cold panel and saw `CONNECT NOT ACT`, but no non-heartbeat serial response. - The newer reproducible `0x45` result depends on sending the CALL-high and CALL-low frames as a pair with a gap. That exact cold/no-button pair has not been tested yet. Tooling note: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now supports `--startup-frame`. These frames are sent automatically after the listen window begins, without waiting for a physical button event. Test C1: cold CALL pair, 50 ms gap, no physical button press. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 12 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-pair-gap-50ms.txt ``` Test C2: cold CALL pair, 80 ms gap, no physical button press. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 12 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.08 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-pair-gap-80ms.txt ``` Test C3: cold CALL high only, no physical button press. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 12 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-high-only.txt ``` Test C4: cold CALL low only, no physical button press. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 12 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-low-only.txt ``` For each test, power-cycle first and do not press any panel buttons. If C1/C2 produce `0x45`, the host can synthesize the CALL event path. If they do not, the RCP's own physical CALL transition is required before the echo pair has meaning. ### 2026-05-13 Cold No-Button CALL Injection Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-pair-gap-50ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-pair-gap-80ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-high-only.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-low-only.txt` Observed result: | Test | Host startup frame(s) | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | C1 | `00 00 15 80 00 CF`, 50 ms gap, `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | C2 | `00 00 15 80 00 CF`, 80 ms gap, `00 00 15 00 00 4F` | `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | C3 | `00 00 15 80 00 CF` only | heartbeat only | | C4 | `00 00 15 00 00 4F` only | heartbeat only | Interpretation: - The host can synthesize the CALL `0x45` response path without pressing the physical `CALL` button. - The RCP does not require its own front-panel CALL transition before this path has meaning. - The required trigger is the ordered CALL-high then CALL-low pair with a small inter-frame gap. Either frame alone is insufficient. - This makes `00 00 15 80 00 CF -> 00 00 15 00 00 4F` a confirmed host-side event stimulus, not merely an echo of physical button traffic. - The response still returns to heartbeat afterward; this remains useful for protocol probing but is not yet an activation/session handshake. ### Next CALL Tests Two useful follow-ups now that the host can synthesize the CALL path: 1. Determine whether the synthetic CALL trigger is repeatable within one power cycle, or whether the first `0x45` response latches/suppresses later ones. 2. Probe adjacent `0x45` family responses that might drive the illuminated CALL button or another visible state. ### CALL Retrigger / Latch Tests Tooling note: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now supports repeating the startup frame group with `--startup-repeat` and `--startup-repeat-interval`. Test R1: two synthetic CALL trigger cycles, 2 second gap. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 16 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 2.0 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-2s.txt ``` Test R2: two synthetic CALL trigger cycles, 5 second gap. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 22 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 5.0 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-5s.txt ``` Test R3: three synthetic CALL trigger cycles, 2 second gap. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 24 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 3 --startup-repeat-interval 2.0 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-3x-gap-2s.txt ``` Interpretation: - If `Watch totals` shows one `0x45` hit per trigger cycle, this path is repeatable and not a one-shot latch. - If only the first cycle produces `0x45`, treat the CALL path as latched until power cycle or some unknown reset. - If later cycles produce `07 80 45 30 D0 78` instead of `...20...`, the RCP may be stepping through a small state machine rather than simply suppressing repeats. ### Adjacent `0x45` Family Follow-Up Tests Goal: once the synthetic CALL pair has produced `07 80 45 20 D0 68`, send nearby frames that might act like CALL lamp/tally control. Watch the CALL button lamp, LCD, and serial stream after each follow-up. Useful adjacent candidates: | Candidate type | Follow-up frame | Why it is interesting | | --- | --- | --- | | host-shaped command below | `00 00 44 20 D0 EE` | adjacent command byte | | host-shaped command known | `00 00 45 20 D0 EF` | same command, host-shaped | | host-shaped command above | `00 00 46 20 D0 EC` | adjacent command byte | | exact-family sibling seen once | `07 80 45 30 D0 78` | observed adjacent state | | exact-family state below | `07 80 45 10 D0 58` | nearby state nibble | | exact-family command above | `07 80 46 20 D0 6B` | nearby command nibble | Run each candidate in a separate power cycle. The startup CALL pair is used only to make the RCP produce the known `0x45` response first. Test A1: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 44 20 D0 EE" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-44-host.txt ``` Test A2: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 45 20 D0 EF" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-host.txt ``` Test A3: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "00 00 46 20 D0 EC" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-46-host.txt ``` Test A4: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-state30.txt ``` Test A5: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "07 80 45 10 D0 58" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-state10.txt ``` Test A6: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 15 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --followup-on-watch-frame --followup-frame "07 80 46 20 D0 6B" --log captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-46-exact.txt ``` Record for each run: - whether the CALL button lamp changes - whether the LCD changes - whether any non-heartbeat serial data appears after the follow-up ### 2026-05-13 Initial CALL Retrigger Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-2s.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-5s.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-3x-gap-2s.txt` Observed result: - All configured synthetic CALL trigger cycles were transmitted. - Each run recorded only one visible `07 80 45 20 D0 68`. - No LCD change was observed beyond the already known `CONNECT NOT ACT`. Important tooling limitation: - In this first version of the repeat test, the helper sent all startup trigger groups before entering its main RX loop. - That means the captured `0x45` frame count is not a clean per-cycle measure. A single buffered `0x45` at the end does not prove whether only one cycle triggered or multiple triggers collapsed into one unread serial burst. Interpretation: - These runs suggest the CALL path may be latched or at least not obviously retriggering, but they are not strong enough to prove it. - A corrected repeat test must read after each trigger group before sending the next one. Tooling update: - `scripts/serial_button_response_test.py` now supports `--startup-read-after-group`, which reads and logs RX after each startup-frame group before the next repeat. Corrected repeat tests: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 16 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 2.0 --startup-read-after-group 0.8 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-2s-v2.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 22 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 5.0 --startup-read-after-group 0.8 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-5s-v2.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 24 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 3 --startup-repeat-interval 2.0 --startup-read-after-group 0.8 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-3x-gap-2s-v2.txt ``` ### 2026-05-13 Corrected CALL Retrigger Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-2s-v2.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-5s-v2.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-3x-gap-2s-v2.txt` User observation: - No LCD changes were observed beyond the already known `CONNECT NOT ACT`. Observed serial result: | Test | Trigger groups sent | `0x45` result | | --- | --- | --- | | 2x, 2 second gap | 2 | both groups produced `07 80 45 20 D0 68`, four copies each | | 2x, 5 second gap | 2 | only first group produced `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | | 3x, 2 second gap | 3 | only first group produced `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | Interpretation: - The synthetic CALL path is not a strict one-shot latch, because the 2x/2s run clearly retriggered on the second group. - It is also not cleanly repeatable on every later trigger, because the 2x/5s and 3x/2s runs only produced the `0x45` burst on the first group. - Each successful trigger can produce a short burst of repeated identical `07 80 45 20 D0 68` frames rather than a single reply. - Current best model: the CALL path is re-enterable but phase/state-sensitive. Something about timing relative to the RCP's internal scan/heartbeat/session state affects whether later trigger groups are accepted. Practical takeaway: - We can use the synthetic CALL pair as a reproducible probe, but not yet as a guaranteed repeatable command in every cycle of a run. - For future CALL-path experiments, treat one successful `0x45` burst per power cycle as the reliable baseline, and repeated triggers as conditional behavior worth probing rather than assuming. Next retrigger refinement: ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 20 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 2.0 --startup-read-after-group 1.5 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-2s-read1500ms.txt python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 23 --prompt --startup-delay 1.0 --startup-frame-interval 0.05 --startup-frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --startup-frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --startup-repeat 2 --startup-repeat-interval 3.0 --startup-read-after-group 1.5 --watch-frame "07 80 45 20 D0 68" --watch-frame "07 80 45 30 D0 78" --log captures/rcp-buttons-cold-call-repeat-2x-gap-3s-read1500ms.txt ``` These should help distinguish whether the second-trigger variability is caused by too-short post-trigger read windows, or by a genuine acceptance window/state inside the RCP. ### 2026-05-13 Adjacent `0x45` Follow-Up Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-44-host.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-host.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-46-host.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-state30.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-45-state10.txt` - `captures/rcp-buttons-call-adjacent-46-exact.txt` User observation: - No LCD changes were observed beyond the already known `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - No CALL button lamp change was observed in these runs. Serial result: | Test | Follow-up frame after `07 80 45 20 D0 68` | Result | | --- | --- | --- | | A1 | `00 00 44 20 D0 EE` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | A2 | `00 00 45 20 D0 EF` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | A3 | `00 00 46 20 D0 EC` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | A4 | `07 80 45 30 D0 78` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | A5 | `07 80 45 10 D0 58` | heartbeat only after follow-up | | A6 | `07 80 46 20 D0 6B` | heartbeat only after follow-up | Interpretation: - None of the first adjacent `0x45` family probes appear to drive the CALL lamp or advance the serial state. - The obvious nearby command/state variants are not enough on their own to act like a CALL lamp/tally command. - The CALL `0x45` family remains useful as a probe point, but the lamp control is probably elsewhere in the protocol or needs more session context. ### 2026-05-13 Outside-Region Clean Confirmation Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-outside-confirm-00-40-4f-8f-ef.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-repeat-00-40.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-repeat-00-4f.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-repeat-00-8f.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-repeat-00-ef.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-single-40.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-single-4f.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-single-8f.txt` - `captures/rcp-outside-single-ef.txt` Goal: - Clean-confirm whether the paused direct-sweep outliers `0x40`, `0x4F`, `0x8F`, and `0xEF` are real primer-dependent queries outside the mapped `A/B/C` table. - Check whether they also work as single first-frame commands after boot. Primer-pair result: ```text primer: 00 00 00 00 80 DA candidate: 00 00 CMD 00 80 CHECKSUM ``` Observed responses: | Pair | Multi-candidate confirm run | Single-candidate repeat | Current read | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | `00 -> 40` | heartbeat only in the 4-candidate pass | `07 80 50 40 30 FD` repeated | confirmed real, but missed once in the shared sweep | | `00 -> 4F` | `07 80 0A 04 AB 78` | `07 80 0A 04 6B B8` repeated | confirmed real, response bytes vary across runs | | `00 -> 8F` | `07 80 0C 04 AB 7E` repeated | `07 80 0C 04 AB 7E` once, then heartbeat | confirmed real and stable in content | | `00 -> EF` | `07 80 0F 04 AB 7D` repeated | `07 80 0F 04 AB 7D` repeated | confirmed real; differs from earlier paused-sweep `07 80 0F 04 EB 3D` | Single-frame control result: All of these stayed heartbeat-compatible when sent as the first host frame after boot, with no anomalies recorded: - `00 00 40 00 80 9A` - `00 00 4F 00 80 95` - `00 00 8F 00 80 55` - `00 00 EF 00 80 35` Interpretation: - `0x40`, `0x4F`, `0x8F`, and `0xEF` are now confirmed as real primer-dependent readable/query responses outside the clean `A/B/C` map. - None of the four behave like direct first-frame activation/session commands. They sit much closer to the broader query/status surface than to an unlatching handshake. - `0x40` appears slightly context- or timing-sensitive because it missed in the shared 4-candidate pass but reproduced cleanly when isolated. - `0x4F` and `0xEF` need extra caution: the response family is real, but the value bytes are not yet fully nailed down across all captures. - `0x4F` has been seen as both `07 80 0A 04 AB 78` and `07 80 0A 04 6B B8`. - `0xEF` has been seen as both `07 80 0F 04 AB 7D` and the earlier paused direct-sweep `07 80 0F 04 EB 3D`. - Best current model: these are legitimate outer-table queries whose returned payload can still depend on selector context, prior sequence, or exactly when in the panel's internal state machine they are sampled. ## Host Identity / Capability Exchange Lead Ladder Goal: - Test whether the CCU is expected to identify itself before asking for capability/state blocks. - Separate "query selector/page" behavior from "host identity/session setup" behavior. - Check whether a short query burst behaves more like a capability poll than a single one-shot request. Tooling: - Use `scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py` for fixed multi-frame sequences where the canonical primer stays constant and only later frames vary. - Use `scripts/serial_primer_candidate_sweep.py` when only a simple `primer -> candidate` pair is needed. ### Test HI1: Prefix Variation On A Stable Query Keep the known-good primer fixed and vary only the prefix bytes of the `A0` query frame. If the response changes, the host prefix bytes may carry CCU identity, addressing, or mode information rather than being ignored padding. Power-cycle before each run. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0000-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 80 A0 00 80 FA" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0080-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "80 00 A0 00 80 FA" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-8000-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "07 80 A0 00 80 FD" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0780-a0.txt ``` What to watch for: - Same `A0` block as baseline: prefix bytes probably are not the missing host identity on their own. - Different structured block: prefix bytes likely select host identity, page, or role. - Heartbeat only: that prefix pair may be invalid or reserved. ### Test HI2: State/Value Variation On A Stable Query Keep the canonical prefix and command byte, but vary the state/value fields on the `A0` query. This checks whether the host is supposed to present status or capability bits in fields that we have mostly left at `00 80`. Power-cycle before each run. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-a0-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 20 D0 0A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-a0-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 40 30 8A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-a0-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 60 30 AA" --read-after-frame 1.2 --log captures/rcp-hostid-a0-6030.txt ``` What to watch for: - Same `A0` block every time: host state/value fields may be ignored here. - Different block family or different returned value bytes: these fields may be host-presented capability/status bits. - LCD/LED changes without a different serial block: possible session-state side effect rather than a simple table read. ### Test HI3: Primer -> Host-Announce -> Query Try likely selector/identity-looking bytes as a middle frame before the stable `A0` query. This is the direct "CCU says who it is first" test. Power-cycle before each run. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-90-then-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 9F 00 80 45" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-9f-then-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-af-then-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B7 00 80 6D" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-b7-then-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 BB 00 80 61" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-bb-then-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 FF 00 80 25" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.0 --log captures/rcp-hostid-announce-ff-then-a0.txt ``` What to watch for: - Middle frame gets heartbeat only, third frame still returns plain `A0` block: the announce byte probably is not sufficient. - Middle frame changes the later `A0` response: strong evidence for a host-identity/selector stage. - Middle frame alone produces a new block: it may itself be a readable capability/identity query rather than a pure host announce. ### Test HI4: Capability-Poll Block Send a short family of related queries as if a CCU is polling multiple capability blocks in one startup pass. This checks whether the panel expects a cluster of reads instead of one isolated query. Power-cycle before each run. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 A1 00 80 7B" --frame "00 00 A4 00 80 7E" --frame "00 00 A5 00 80 7F" --read-after-frame 0.8 --log captures/rcp-hostid-capblock-a-family.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 B1 00 80 6B" --frame "00 00 B8 00 80 62" --frame "00 00 BC 00 80 66" --read-after-frame 0.8 --log captures/rcp-hostid-capblock-b-family.txt ``` What to watch for: - Only the first query in the block responds: the one-shot model still dominates. - Later queries also respond once the family is polled as a burst: this would be a major new lead toward CCU-style startup behavior. - A later query changes the LCD or LEDs even if the first one looks ordinary: still worth treating as a lead. ### Test HI5: Repeated Poll Group Repeat the same short poll group with a gap, to test whether the panel wants periodic polling or whether only the first startup block matters. Power-cycle before each run. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 B1 00 80 6B" --repeat 3 --repeat-interval 1.5 --read-after-frame 0.8 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-hostid-repeat-b0-b1.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --repeat 3 --repeat-interval 1.5 --read-after-frame 1.0 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-hostid-repeat-a0.txt ``` What to watch for: - Only group 1 responds: startup window or latch behavior still dominates. - Later groups begin to respond too: periodic polling may be part of the expected CCU session. - A later group changes visible state even with similar serial output: possible session-timer or keepalive behavior. Recommended order: 1. `HI3` because it most directly tests the "CCU identifies itself first" hypothesis. 2. `HI4` because a capability-poll burst is a plausible Sony startup pattern. 3. `HI1` and `HI2` if the first two stay flat and we need to isolate which host fields matter. ### 2026-05-13 Host Identity / Capability Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0000-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0080-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-8000-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-a0-0080.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-a0-20d0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-a0-4030.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-a0-6030.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-90-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-9f-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-af-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-b7-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-bb-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-announce-ff-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-capblock-a-family.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-capblock-b-family.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-repeat-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-hostid-repeat-b0-b1.txt` Not run / no capture present: - `captures/rcp-hostid-prefix-0780-a0.txt` #### HI1: Prefix Variation On `A0` Observed result: | Query frame after primer | Result | | --- | --- | | `00 00 A0 00 80 7A` | conflicting captures: one run returned `07 80 E8 40 30 45`, another returned `07 80 68 40 30 C5` | | `00 80 A0 00 80 FA` | heartbeat only | | `80 00 A0 00 80 FA` | heartbeat only | | `07 80 A0 00 80 FD` | not run | Read: - Nonzero host prefix bytes did not help. The tested `00 80` and `80 00` prefixes suppressed the `A0` response entirely. - The plain `00 00` prefix remains the only confirmed working host prefix for `A0`, although the returned block still varies across runs. #### HI2: State/Value Variation On `A0` Observed result: | Query frame after primer | Observed RCP response | | --- | --- | | `00 00 A0 00 80 7A` | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` repeated | | `00 00 A0 20 D0 0A` | `07 80 E8 48 3A 47` repeated | | `00 00 A0 40 30 8A` | `07 80 68 58 26 CB` repeated | | `00 00 A0 60 30 AA` | `07 80 68 58 26 CB` repeated | Read: - This is the strongest new lead in the set. - The `A0` response is not fixed: the host `state/value` fields clearly affect the returned block. - That strongly supports the idea that these fields are carrying host-presented status, selector, or capability information, not just filler. #### HI3: Primer -> Host-Announce -> `A0` Observed result: | Sequence | Middle-frame result | Later `A0` result | | --- | --- | --- | | `00 -> 90 -> A0` | `07 80 64 40 30 C9` repeated | no clean `A0`; only one more `07 80 64 40 30 C9` then heartbeat | | `00 -> 9F -> A0` | heartbeat only after `9F` | heartbeat only after `A0`; a prior anomaly `07 80 40 40 30 ED` appeared immediately after the primer | | `00 -> AF -> A0` | `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F` visible with a leading heartbeat fragment | heartbeat only after `A0` | | `00 -> B7 -> A0` | `07 80 1B 08 D6 18` repeated | heartbeat only after `A0` | | `00 -> BB -> A0` | `07 80 37 10 2C D6` repeated | no clean `A0`; only one more `07 80 37 10 2C D6` then heartbeat | | `00 -> FF -> A0` | heartbeat only | heartbeat only | Read: - The "announce" bytes behaved more like readable/query commands than like a host identity banner the panel accepts and then builds on. - In most runs, the middle frame consumed the one-shot response opportunity and the following `A0` did not produce its own block. - So far this argues against a simple three-step handshake of `primer -> host identity -> query`. #### HI4: Capability-Poll Block Observed result: | Block | Result | | --- | --- | | `00 -> A0 -> A1 -> A4 -> A5` | only `A0` responded (`07 80 68 40 30 C5`); `A1`, `A4`, and `A5` were heartbeat only | | `00 -> B0 -> B1 -> B8 -> BC` | only `B0` responded (`07 80 EC 40 30 41` with a leading heartbeat fragment); `B1`, `B8`, and `BC` were heartbeat only | Read: - A burst of related readable queries did not unlock later responses in the same startup pass. - The one-shot model still dominates: first successful readable query responds, later ones in the burst are suppressed. #### HI5: Repeated Poll Group Observed result: | Repeated group | Result | | --- | --- | | `00 -> A0`, repeated 3 times | only group 1 produced `07 80 68 40 30 C5`; groups 2 and 3 were heartbeat only | | `00 -> B0 -> B1`, repeated 3 times | only group 1 `B0` produced a response; later groups were heartbeat only and `B1` never responded | Read: - Periodic polling without a power cycle did not open a sustained session. - The panel still behaves like it offers one early readable response block, then falls back to heartbeat-only behavior. Overall interpretation: - The cleanest new evidence is that host `state/value` fields matter a lot for at least the `A0` family. - The tested nonzero prefixes do not look like a missing CCU identity by themselves. - Candidate "announce" bytes mostly act like ordinary readable/query selectors, not like a reusable host identity stage. - Capability-poll bursts and repeated poll groups did not create a multi-query session. - Best current model: the startup exchange probably does involve host-presented status or selector bits, but the currently tested sequences still land in a one-shot query regime rather than an active maintained session. ## Negative-Space Test Ladder Goal: - Find out what the panel quietly ignores versus what changes its internal parser/session state. - Check whether repetitive "host heartbeat" traffic alone changes anything. - Recheck whether a known readable query needs silence afterward, or whether the act of repetition itself suppresses later behavior. - See whether a malformed checksum has any special effect beyond the already known `CONNECT NOT ACT` parser-visible state. Recommended observation: - Power-cycle before each test. - Note any LCD change, especially whether it remains blank/idle or reaches the usual `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Note any visible LED change, even if the serial log looks ordinary. ### NS1: Assumed Host Heartbeat Only Send only the current assumed host heartbeat frame repeatedly for a longer window, with no follow-up query. ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 80 --interval 0.25 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-negative-heartbeat-only.txt ``` Read goal: - If this alone eventually changes visible state, cadence may matter more than command diversity. - If it remains heartbeat-only and visually inert, the primer/heartbeat frame is probably necessary but not sufficient. ### 2026-05-13 NS1 Partial Result User observation from two power-cycled runs: - During the entire `NS1` script run, the panel did **not** enter `CONNECT NOT ACT` / `CONNECTION NOT ACT`. - About 2 seconds after the repeating heartbeat-only script stopped, the panel entered `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Manually interrupting the script showed the same pattern: while the stream was active, no `CONNECT NOT ACT`; about 2 seconds after transmission ceased, the panel entered `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Once the panel was already in `CONNECT NOT ACT`, restarting the heartbeat-only script did not immediately clear that state. Interpretation: - Continuous transmission of the assumed host heartbeat appears to hold the panel out of the `CONNECT NOT ACT` display state. - The transition into `CONNECT NOT ACT` now looks less like "bad packet was received" and more like "host traffic stopped and a connection/activity timer expired." - That suggests the panel may treat regular host traffic as evidence of a live link, even when the session is not fully active. - It also suggests `CONNECT NOT ACT` may be a post-timeout idle/failure state rather than an immediate parse-error state. - The fact that restarting the stream does not snap the LCD back out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` implies the entry condition and exit condition are probably different. Keeping traffic alive may prevent the state, but leaving the state may require a separate activation/ack/session step. Next refinement worth doing: - Repeat `NS1` with different transmit intervals such as `100 ms`, `500 ms`, and `1.5 s` to estimate the timeout threshold for preventing `CONNECT NOT ACT`. ### NS2: Primer Only, Short Burst Groups Use the sequence probe to send the same primer in repeated groups, with a gap between groups, to see whether grouped startup chatter matters differently than an uninterrupted stream. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 6 --repeat-interval 1.0 --read-after-frame 0.6 --read-after-group 0.6 --log captures/rcp-negative-primer-groups.txt ``` Read goal: - If a later group produces anything non-heartbeat, the panel may have a boot window or cadence threshold. - If every group is ignored, plain primer repetition is probably dead air from the panel's point of view. ### NS3: Known Readable Query Once, Then Silence Send a known readable query once after the canonical primer and then do nothing else for a longer read window. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --read-after-group 5.0 --log captures/rcp-negative-a0-once-then-silence.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --read-after-frame 1.2 --read-after-group 5.0 --log captures/rcp-negative-b0-once-then-silence.txt ``` Read goal: - If the panel emits extra delayed frames after the initial block, it may be expecting a host response or entering a timed wait state. - If it cleanly returns to heartbeat-only, the one-shot read probably ends the interaction by itself. ### NS4: Known Readable Query Repeated Send the same readable query repeatedly after a primer, without power-cycling, to separate "one-shot per boot" from "suppressed only by mixed traffic." ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --repeat 5 --repeat-interval 1.0 --read-after-frame 1.0 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-negative-a0-repeat.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --repeat 5 --repeat-interval 1.0 --read-after-frame 1.0 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-negative-b0-repeat.txt ``` Read goal: - If only the first group responds, that strengthens the one-shot-per-boot model. - If a later group responds again, repeated identical polling may be more valid than mixed-family polling. ### NS5: Malformed Checksum Once Send one malformed checksum frame with the same shape as the assumed heartbeat, then observe whether the panel does anything beyond ordinary heartbeat and the known parser-visible display state. ```powershell python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 00 00 80 00" --repeat 1 --delay 3 --after 8 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-negative-bad-heartbeat-once.txt python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 A0 00 80 00" --repeat 1 --delay 3 --after 8 --frame-size 0 --log captures/rcp-negative-bad-a0-once.txt ``` Read goal: - If malformed frames cause no special serial result beyond heartbeat, checksum errors are probably tolerated only enough to flip link-visible state. - If malformed `A0` produces a different visible or serial effect than malformed heartbeat, the parser may be doing more command-byte inspection before checksum rejection than expected. ### NS6: Deliberate Silence Control This is a no-transmit control to compare against all of the above. Just watch RX with no host traffic. ```powershell python scripts/serial_button_response_test.py --port COM5 --duration 20 ``` Read goal: - Confirm the natural idle pattern and visible state with zero host traffic in the exact same bench setup. Recommended order: 1. `NS6` silence control 2. `NS1` heartbeat only 3. `NS3` query once then silence 4. `NS4` repeated same query 5. `NS5` malformed checksum once 6. `NS2` primer groups ### 2026-05-13 Negative-Space Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-negative-heartbeat-only.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-heartbeat-100ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-heartbeat-500ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-heartbeat-1500ms.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-primer-groups.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-a0-once-then-silence.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-b0-once-then-silence.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-a0-repeat.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-b0-repeat.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-bad-heartbeat-once.txt` - `captures/rcp-negative-bad-a0-once.txt` #### NS1: Assumed Host Heartbeat Only Observed serial result: - The repeated host heartbeat usually left RX at ordinary heartbeat, but some runs produced a short early structured response burst near the second host heartbeat: - `07 80 40 60 30 CD` - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - These bursts were transient. After them, the link returned to ordinary heartbeat RX while the host heartbeat stream continued. Observed LCD/timing result from user notes: - `100 ms` interval: `CONNECT NOT ACT` appeared near the end before the script fully finished. - `500 ms` interval: `CONNECT NOT ACT` appeared once the script finished. - `1500 ms` interval: the panel timed out at the very end, just before the script finished. - Earlier manual observation also still stands: while the heartbeat stream is actively running, the panel can remain out of `CONNECT NOT ACT`, then fall into it roughly 2 seconds after traffic stops. Read: - Regular heartbeat traffic clearly affects the panel's visible connection timeout behavior. - The panel is not treating `00 00 00 00 80 DA` as a full activation command, but it does appear to treat it as meaningful host-presence traffic. - The brief `0x40` / `0xC0` response bursts suggest some heartbeat cadences can momentarily steer the panel into a different readable state family even without an explicit query. #### NS2: Primer Groups Observed result: - Repeated single-frame primer groups produced only heartbeat-compatible RX. - No anomalies were logged. Read: - Sparse primer pings alone do not seem to provoke the panel into a readable state. - Grouped startup chatter is weaker than a continuous heartbeat stream. #### NS3: Known Query Once, Then Silence Observed result: | Sequence | Immediate response | Tail behavior | | --- | --- | --- | | `00 -> A0`, then silence | `07 80 68 40 30 C5` repeated | a short additional `07 80 68 40 30 C5` tail, then heartbeat only | | `00 -> B0`, then silence | `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` repeated | a short additional `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` tail, then heartbeat only | Read: - A successful one-shot readable query continues to drain out a short burst for a moment even after host transmission stops. - After that short burst, the panel returns cleanly to ordinary heartbeat-only behavior. #### NS4: Known Query Repeated Observed result: | Repeated sequence | Result | | --- | --- | | `00 -> A0`, repeated 5 times | only group 1 produced `07 80 68 40 30 C5`; groups 2-5 were heartbeat only | | `00 -> B0`, repeated 5 times | only group 1 produced `07 80 6C 40 30 C1`; groups 2-5 were heartbeat only | Read: - Repeating the exact same known-good readable query does **not** make it reusable. - This strengthens the one-shot-per-boot model for these query families. #### NS5: Malformed Checksum Once Observed result: - A malformed heartbeat-shaped frame `00 00 00 00 80 00` produced only ordinary heartbeat RX afterward. - A malformed `A0`-shaped frame `00 00 A0 00 80 00` also produced only ordinary heartbeat RX afterward. Read: - Malformed frames do not seem to trigger a special serial reaction on their own. - Whatever visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` behavior malformed frames may cause on the LCD, it is not accompanied by a distinctive RX response block in these runs. Overall interpretation: - Silence and malformed traffic are serially boring. - Successful readable queries still behave as one-shot bursts followed by a return to heartbeat. - Repeating those same queries still does not reopen them. - Continuous heartbeat traffic is the one negative-space case that clearly changes panel behavior: - it can delay or suppress entry into `CONNECT NOT ACT` - it can sometimes provoke brief `0x40` / `0xC0` response-family bursts without any explicit query command ## Heartbeat-Maintained Reuse Test Goal: - Check whether keeping a host heartbeat alive between query attempts makes the one-shot readable blocks reusable without power-cycling. Working idea: - Earlier repeat tests used `primer -> query` groups with idle gaps. - The new negative-space tests suggest steady heartbeat traffic may hold the panel in a more connection-aware state. - So the next question is whether interleaving regular heartbeats between query attempts can reopen `A0` or `B0`. ### HR1: `A0` With Heartbeat Maintenance ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 4 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-frame 0.35 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-a0.txt ``` ### HR2: `B0` With Heartbeat Maintenance ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 4 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-frame 0.35 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-b0.txt ``` ### HR3: Denser Heartbeat Maintenance Around `A0` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 4 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-a0-dense.txt ``` What to watch for: - group 1 only responds: heartbeat maintenance is not enough; the latch still dominates - later groups respond with the same readable block: heartbeat maintenance partially reopens the one-shot query path - later groups do not return `A0`/`B0` but do return `0x40`/`0xC0` blocks: heartbeat cadence may be moving the panel into a different selector/state family instead of truly reusing the original query ### 2026-05-13 Heartbeat-Maintained Reuse Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-maintained-a0-dense.txt` User LCD observation: - In all three heartbeat-maintained runs, the panel never entered `CONNECT NOT ACT` / `CONNECTION NOT ACT` while the script was running. #### HR1: `A0` With Heartbeat Maintenance Observed result: - Group 1: - `A0` produced `07 80 68 40 30 C5` - the next heartbeat frame drained the tail of that same `A0` burst - Groups 2-4: - `A0` produced heartbeat-compatible RX only - surrounding heartbeat frames also stayed heartbeat-only Read: - Keeping heartbeat traffic alive after the first `A0` response did not make `A0` reusable. - It did, however, keep the panel in the non-`CONNECT NOT ACT` display state. #### HR2: `B0` With Heartbeat Maintenance Observed result: - Group 1: - `B0` produced one readable block `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` - Groups 2-4: - `B0` produced heartbeat-compatible RX only - surrounding heartbeat frames stayed heartbeat-only Read: - Same outcome as `A0`: heartbeat maintenance did not reopen the one-shot query path for `B0`. #### HR3: Denser Heartbeat Maintenance Around `A0` Observed result: - Group 1: - the second heartbeat frame, before `A0`, provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - the following `A0` frame itself produced only heartbeat-compatible RX - Groups 2-4: - no `A0` response - surrounding heartbeat frames stayed heartbeat-compatible Read: - Denser heartbeat traffic can push the panel into the transient `0x40` family state before the `A0` query arrives. - In that case, the heartbeat-induced `0x40` response appears to consume the one-shot response opportunity and suppress the `A0` block. Overall interpretation: - Heartbeat maintenance is strong enough to affect the panel's visible connection state, but not strong enough by itself to make `A0`/`B0` reusable. - The latch/one-shot behavior still dominates the readable query families. - Dense heartbeat traffic can compete with or displace a later explicit query by provoking a transient `0x40`-family response first. - Best current model: - heartbeat cadence helps hold a "live host present" condition - a separate selector/query opportunity still exists only once per boot or once per internal state phase - some heartbeat cadences can spend that opportunity on `0x40`/`0xC0` family responses instead of `A0`/`B0` Next branch worth testing: - intentionally provoke the transient heartbeat-induced `0x40`/`0xC0` family, then immediately query nearby commands to see whether that state exposes a new readable page - or combine heartbeat maintenance with the synthetic CALL path, to test whether "host present" plus an event-path trigger behaves differently than "host present" plus a plain table query ## Camera-Info-Stream Hypothesis Ladder Goal: - Test the idea that the panel wants more than a plain link heartbeat. - Treat one frame family as "host present" and another as possible camera-state/camera-info traffic. - Check whether the transient heartbeat-induced `0x40` / `0xC0` family is a different readable page or context, not just noise. Working model: 1. host heartbeat says "I am here" 2. a second family says "here is current camera state" 3. only then does the panel become fully active ### CI1: Provoke `0x40` Family, Then Query `B0` Use the same dense double-heartbeat pattern that previously provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED`, then immediately ask for a known `B0` block. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 4 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-40-then-b0.txt ``` Question: - Does the `0x40` family suppress `B0`, alter `B0`, or allow a different `B0` response family than the normal `07 80 6C 40 30 C1`? ### CI2: Provoke `0x40` Family, Then Query `B5` Same idea, but use the strongest discovery-like block we have. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 4 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-40-then-b5.txt ``` Question: - If `B5` is really a discovery/status block, does entering the heartbeat-driven `0x40` state make it return a different page, or consume it entirely? ### CI3: Probe Commands Aligned With The Heartbeat-Induced Family Try a simple `00 -> 40` and `00 -> C0` query again, but now with a small heartbeat run-up first instead of a bare primer. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 00 80 9A" --read-after-frame 0.4 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-preheart-40.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 C0 00 80 1A" --read-after-frame 0.4 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-preheart-c0.txt ``` Question: - Do these commands return something closer to the transient `0x40` / `0xC0` response families when the panel has just seen two host heartbeats? ### CI4: Sustained Mixed Stream, Status-Block Style Instead of repeating one query, rotate through a small set of known readable blocks while keeping heartbeat in the stream. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-mixed-a0-b0-b5.txt ``` Question: - Does a rotating "camera info block" stream behave differently from hammering a single one-shot query? ### CI5: Sustained Mixed Stream, Heartbeat-Driven Family Rotate heartbeat around `0x40`-family and normal query candidates to see whether the panel prefers a page/state rhythm instead of a static query. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 00 80 9A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 C0 00 80 1A" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-mixed-40-b0-c0.txt ``` Question: - Does mixing the heartbeat-aligned family with a known readable block expose a reusable page, a new response family, or any visible panel state change? ### CI6: Sparse Heartbeat Run-Up, Then `A0` Try the same idea as the dense `0x40` trigger, but with slower heartbeat spacing that previously nudged the `0xC0` family. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 1.50 --read-after-frame 0.45 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-camerainfo-c0-then-a0.txt ``` Question: - Does a slower heartbeat-derived state family behave differently from the dense `0x40` case? What to watch for: - the panel stays out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` for the whole run - a known readable block changes family or value fields - a later query responds where it previously would not - the transient `0x40` / `0xC0` family appears immediately before a different stable block - any lamp or display change beyond the usual timeout behavior Recommended order: 1. `CI1` 2. `CI2` 3. `CI4` 4. `CI5` 5. `CI6` ### 2026-05-13 Camera-Info-Stream Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-40-then-b0.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-40-then-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-preheart-40.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-preheart-c0.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-mixed-a0-b0-b5.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-mixed-40-b0-c0.txt` - `captures/rcp-camerainfo-c0-then-a0.txt` User observation: - In `CI6`, the panel appeared to enter `CONNECT NOT ACT` and then emit a single latch/readable response afterward. #### CI1: Provoke `0x40`/`0xC0`, Then Query `B0` Observed result: - Group 1: - the second heartbeat produced `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - the following `B0` query produced only heartbeat-compatible RX - Groups 2-4: - no structured `B0` response - all later frames stayed heartbeat-compatible Read: - The heartbeat-induced `0xC0` family did not open a new `B0` page. - It appears to consume or displace the normal one-shot response opportunity. #### CI2: Provoke `0x40`, Then Query `B5` Observed result: - Group 1: - the second heartbeat produced `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - the following `B5` query produced only heartbeat-compatible RX - Groups 2-4: - `B5` remained heartbeat-compatible only Read: - Same story as `CI1`: the heartbeat-driven family does not seem to lead into a richer `B5` discovery page. - It suppresses or replaces it. #### CI3: Probe Commands Aligned With The Heartbeat-Induced Family Observed result: | Sequence | Result | | --- | --- | | double heartbeat, then `00 -> 40` | heartbeat-induced `07 80 40 40 30 ED`, then `00 -> 40` gave heartbeat only | | double heartbeat, then `00 -> C0` | heartbeat-induced `07 80 40 40 30 ED`, then `00 -> C0` only drained more `07 80 40 40 30 ED` plus heartbeat | Read: - The pre-heartbeat `0x40` state does not make the explicit `40` or `C0` commands bloom into a clear new readable block. - The explicit commands mostly arrive after the transient state is already in progress. #### CI4: Sustained Mixed Stream, Status-Block Style Observed result: - Group 1: - `A0` produced `07 80 68 40 30 C5` - later `B0` and `B5` in the same mixed stream were heartbeat only - Groups 2-3: - `A0`, `B0`, and `B5` were all heartbeat-compatible only Read: - A rotating "camera info block" stream did not keep opening new readable status pages. - The first successful block still wins, then the rest are suppressed. #### CI5: Sustained Mixed Stream, Heartbeat-Driven Family Observed result: - Group 1: - `00 -> 40` produced `07 80 50 40 30 FD` - later `B0` and `C0` in the same stream were heartbeat only - Groups 2-3: - all later frames were heartbeat-compatible only Read: - This confirms `00 -> 40` is a stable explicit query family in its own right. - But, again, the first successful readable family suppresses later queries in the same stream. #### CI6: Sparse Heartbeat Run-Up, Then `A0` Observed result: - Group 1: - two widely spaced heartbeat frames stayed heartbeat-compatible - the later `A0` produced a delayed `07 80 68 40 30 C5` burst - Groups 2-3: - the same pattern returned heartbeat-compatible RX only Read: - This matches the user's observation well: a slow run-up can leave the panel visibly in `CONNECT NOT ACT`, yet a later single readable/latch response can still occur afterward. - That suggests the visible display state and the one-shot readable window are related, but not identical. - A panel that has already fallen into `CONNECT NOT ACT` may still accept one later readable query under the right timing. Overall interpretation: - The "camera info stream" hypothesis is not wrong, but this particular test set did not show a sustained multi-block camera-state feed. - The heartbeat-induced `0x40` / `0xC0` family is real, but it mostly acts like a competing one-shot response family, not a gateway into a larger page. - Mixed streams still collapse into "first successful block wins." - The cleanest new points are: - `00 -> 40` is a real explicit readable family: `07 80 50 40 30 FD` - heartbeat cadence can provoke `0x40` / `0xC0` families without an explicit query - a visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` state does not completely forbid one later readable/latch response Next branch worth testing: - isolate the delayed-after-`CONNECT NOT ACT` case from `CI6` with a small timing ladder around the final `A0` - compare `A0`, `B0`, and `40` after a deliberate wait-until-`CONNECT NOT ACT` phase - test whether the `0x40` / `0xC0` families are better thought of as alternate readable pages rather than camera-info keepalives ## `CONNECT NOT ACT` vs Latch-State Decoupling Test Goal: - Prove that the visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` state and the one-shot readable/latch state are related, but not the same thing. - Show one case where the latch is spent even though the panel does **not** enter `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - Show another case where the panel **does** enter `CONNECT NOT ACT` and can still produce one later readable response. Interpretation target: - If both paths happen, the LCD state is not a direct indicator of whether the one-shot readable window is still available. ### DL1: Latch Spent While `CONNECT NOT ACT` Stays Away This is the "no visible timeout, but latch already consumed" proof. Watch the LCD throughout. The expected result is that the panel stays out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` while running. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-frame 0.35 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-decouple-no-connectnotact-a0.txt ``` What proves decoupling: - group 1: `A0` responds - later groups: `A0` does not respond - LCD never enters `CONNECT NOT ACT` during the run That shows the latch can be spent even while the display does not show the timeout/not-active state. ### DL2: Deliberate `CONNECT NOT ACT`, Then Late `A0` This is the "visible timeout, but one late readable response still exists" proof. Method: - power-cycle - watch for the panel to show `CONNECT NOT ACT` between the first heartbeat and the later `A0` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.50 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-a0.txt ``` What proves decoupling: - the panel visibly enters `CONNECT NOT ACT` - the later `A0` still returns `07 80 68 40 30 C5` That shows the visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` state does not automatically mean the readable/latch opportunity is gone. ### DL3: Deliberate `CONNECT NOT ACT`, Then Two Late `A0` Queries This tightens `DL2` by checking whether the first late query can consume the remaining one-shot readable window while the LCD state stays the same. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.50 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-a0-a0.txt ``` What proves decoupling: - panel enters `CONNECT NOT ACT` - first late `A0` responds - second late `A0` does not - LCD remains in the same visible state That shows the latch/readable state can change while the display state does not. ### DL4: Compare Late `A0`, `B0`, and `40` After `CONNECT NOT ACT` This checks whether only some readable families survive the visible timeout state. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame-interval 2.50 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-b0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 00 80 9A" --frame-interval 2.50 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-40.txt ``` Useful outcomes: - only `A0` responds late: the post-timeout window may be family-specific - `A0`, `B0`, and `40` all respond late: the timeout state is clearly not the same as the latch state - none respond late: the `CI6` late response was timing-sensitive and needs a tighter delay ladder ### DL5: Tight Delay Ladder Around Late `A0` If `DL2` or `DL3` looks close but inconsistent, bracket the timeout edge. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.00 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-delay-2000ms-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.25 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-delay-2250ms-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.50 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-delay-2500ms-a0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame-interval 2.75 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 1.0 --log captures/rcp-decouple-delay-2750ms-a0.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `DL1` 2. `DL2` 3. `DL3` 4. `DL4` 5. `DL5` only if `DL2`/`DL3` are close but inconsistent ### 2026-05-13 `CONNECT NOT ACT` vs Latch-State Decoupling Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-decouple-no-connectnotact-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-decouple-connectnotact-then-a0-a0.txt` User LCD observation: - `DL1`: the panel never presented `CONNECT NOT ACT` while the script was running. - `DL2` and `DL3`: the panel presented `CONNECT NOT ACT` at the start of the script. #### DL1: Latch Spent While `CONNECT NOT ACT` Stays Away Observed result: - Group 1: - `A0` produced a readable block, but this run returned `07 80 E8 40 30 45` rather than `07 80 68 40 30 C5` - Groups 2-3: - `A0` produced heartbeat-compatible RX only - LCD: - no `CONNECT NOT ACT` while the script was active Read: - This is strong evidence for decoupling in one direction: the readable/latch state can be consumed while the panel does **not** show `CONNECT NOT ACT`. - It also reinforces that the `A0` family can vary between at least `68` and `E8` forms depending on context/timing. #### DL2: Deliberate `CONNECT NOT ACT`, Then Late `A0` Observed result: - The panel showed `CONNECT NOT ACT` early in the run. - The later `A0` query produced heartbeat-compatible RX only. - No delayed `A0` readable block appeared at this exact timing. Read: - At a `2.50 s` gap in this two-frame form, visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` did not guarantee a late readable response. - This weakens the simple "enter `CONNECT NOT ACT`, then `A0` always still works once" idea. #### DL3: Deliberate `CONNECT NOT ACT`, Then Two Late `A0` Queries Observed result: - The panel showed `CONNECT NOT ACT` early in the run. - Both later `A0` queries produced heartbeat-compatible RX only. - No readable block appeared on either late `A0`. Read: - This does not provide the hoped-for second half of the decoupling proof. - Instead, it says that once the panel has visibly entered `CONNECT NOT ACT` in this specific timing pattern, the late `A0` opportunity may already be gone or may require narrower timing than `2.50 s`. Overall interpretation: - We now have solid evidence for one half of the claim: `CONNECT NOT ACT` is **not required** for the latch/readable state to be consumed. - We do **not** yet have equally solid evidence for the other half at this timing: a visible `CONNECT NOT ACT` state did not still yield a late `A0` response in `DL2` or `DL3`. - So the current safest statement is: the LCD state and the latch/readable state are not directly coupled, but the exact post-timeout behavior is more timing-sensitive than the earlier `CI6` observation first suggested. Best next move: - run `DL4` and then a tight `DL5` delay bracket - especially around `2.00 s`, `2.25 s`, `2.50 s`, and `2.75 s` - because the difference between the earlier `CI6` late hit and these no-hit decoupling runs is now most likely timing, framing shape, or both ## Heartbeat-Family Echo Probes Goal: - Test whether the newer heartbeat-induced response families behave more like camera-state blocks that the host is expected to mirror or acknowledge. - Compare exact echo versus host-shaped mirror for the same apparent payload. Best current echo candidates: - heartbeat-induced: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - `07 80 40 60 30 CD` - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - explicit `00 -> 40` family: - `07 80 50 40 30 FD` - context-sensitive `A0` variant: - `07 80 E8 40 30 45` Host-shaped mirrors: - `00 00 40 40 30 6A` - `00 00 40 60 30 4A` - `00 00 C0 40 30 EA` - `00 00 50 40 30 7A` - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` ### HE1: Exact Echo Of `07 80 40 40 30 ED` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "07 80 40 40 30 ED" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-404030ed.txt ``` ### HE2: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 40 40 30 ED` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-404030.txt ``` ### HE3: Exact Echo Of `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "07 80 C0 40 30 6D" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-c040306d.txt ``` ### HE4: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 C0 40 30 EA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 3 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.5 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-c04030.txt ``` ### HE5: Exact Echo Of Explicit `00 -> 40` Response ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 40 00 80 9A" --frame "07 80 50 40 30 FD" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.6 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-504030fd.txt ``` ### HE6: Host-Shaped Mirror Of Explicit `00 -> 40` Response ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 40 00 80 9A" --frame "00 00 50 40 30 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.6 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-504030.txt ``` ### HE7: Echo The `A0` Variant From DL1 ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "07 80 E8 40 30 45" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.6 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-e8403045.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.6 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-e84030.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any new non-heartbeat RCP frame after the echo/mirror - the panel leaving or changing behavior around `CONNECT NOT ACT` - a previously one-shot query family becoming readable again - the echo path producing a repeatable family-specific response Recommended order: 1. `HE2` 2. `HE4` 3. `HE1` 4. `HE3` 5. `HE6` 6. `HE7` ### 2026-05-13 Heartbeat-Family Echo Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-404030.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-c04030.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-404030ed.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-c040306d.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-504030.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-504030fd.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-e8403045.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-e84030.txt` #### HE1 / HE2 / HE3 / HE4: Echoing The Heartbeat-Induced `0x40` / `0xC0` Families Observed result: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` exact echo: no new structured response after the echo. - `00 00 40 40 30 6A` host-shaped mirror: no new structured response after the mirror. - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` exact echo: no new structured response after the echo. - `00 00 C0 40 30 EA` host-shaped mirror: no new structured response after the mirror. Read: - The heartbeat-induced `0x40` / `0xC0` families do not currently look like payloads the panel expects to receive back as an echo or mirror. - They behave more like one-way readable/context responses than a bidirectional acknowledge-and-continue exchange. #### HE5 / HE6: Echoing The Explicit `00 -> 40` Response Family Observed result: - `00 -> 40` again produced the known readable block `07 80 50 40 30 FD`. - Exact echo of that block, `07 80 50 40 30 FD`, produced no new structured response. - Host-shaped mirror, `00 00 50 40 30 7A`, also produced no new structured response. - In the host-shaped mirror run, a later plain heartbeat again provoked the transient `07 80 40 40 30 ED` family rather than any direct reply to the mirror. Read: - The explicit `00 -> 40` family also does not behave like something the panel wants echoed back in either exact or host-shaped form. - The reappearance of `07 80 40 40 30 ED` after the mirror reinforces that the heartbeat/context state machine is still active in the background and can dominate what happens next. #### HE7: Echoing The `A0` Variant From DL1 Observed result: Two distinct outcomes appeared here: - Exact echo path: - `00 -> A0` did not log its usual readable block in the immediate window - sending exact `07 80 E8 40 30 45` produced a new unexpected response: `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` - Host-shaped mirror path: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` produced another new structured response: `07 80 FA 50 26 51` Read: - This is the first heartbeat-family echo probe set that produced genuinely new structured responses rather than just heartbeat. - The `E8`/`FA` area now looks much more interesting than the `40`/`C0` exact echo families. - We do not yet know whether: - `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` is a valid stable family or a context-fragmented reply - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` is a proper readable page, an error/status block, or a transformed reply to the `E8`-family mirror - But these are strong enough to treat as new leads rather than noise. Overall interpretation: - Most heartbeat-family responses do **not** behave like simple values the host should echo back. - The exception is the `A0`-variant / `E8` area, where echoing or host-mirroring produced fresh structured responses. - So the most promising echo branch is no longer generic `40`/`C0` heartbeat mirroring, but focused follow-up around: - `07 80 E8 40 30 45` - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` - `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` Next branch worth testing: - reproduce the `E8`-mirror path cleanly and see whether `FA` and `7A` are stable - try host-shaped and exact echoes of `07 80 FA 50 26 51` - probe whether `FA` / `7A` correspond to nearby explicit host queries such as `00 -> FA` or `00 -> 7A` ### HE8: Exact Echo Of `07 80 FA 50 26 51` Recreate the `E8` host-mirror path that previously produced `07 80 FA 50 26 51`, then immediately send the exact `FA` frame back. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "07 80 FA 50 26 51" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-fa502651.txt ``` ### HE9: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 FA 50 26 51` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 FA 50 26 ??` is `D6`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 FA 50 26 D6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-fa5026.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any fresh structured response after the `FA` echo or mirror - a repeat of `07 80 FA 50 26 51` or `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` - any new family in the `50` / `7A` / `FA` region - visible panel behavior changing beyond the usual `CONNECT NOT ACT` ### 2026-05-13 `FA` Echo Follow-Up Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-fa502651.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-fa5026.txt` Result summary: - Both runs behaved the same way. - In group 1, the host-shaped `E8` step `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` produced a new structured family: `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - That `7A` family appeared twice immediately after the `E8` host-mirror step in both runs. - The following `FA` step, whether exact echo `07 80 FA 50 26 51` or host-shaped mirror `00 00 FA 50 26 D6`, did not produce a fresh distinct reply. The receive window only showed one more `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` followed by heartbeat. - In group 2, both runs were heartbeat-only after the same sequence. Interpretation: - The meaningful branch point still appears to be the host-shaped `E8` frame, not the subsequent `FA` echo/mirror. - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` is not yet behaving like a value the host should directly answer to advance the exchange. - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` is now a stronger candidate for a real sibling response family in this branch than `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11`, because it reproduced in both HE8 and HE9 group-1 runs. - The fact that HE8 and HE9 were serially identical suggests the panel likely emitted a delayed/queued `7A`-family response from the `E8` host-mirror step, rather than parsing the `FA` follow-up as a meaningful new command. Best current model of this branch: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` can lead into a `7A` / `FA` response family. - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` may be one branch member, but answering it directly did not produce a second-stage exchange. - The next useful probe should probably target `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` directly, or compare exact-vs-host handling of `7A` rather than `FA`. ### HE10: Exact Echo Of `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` Recreate the host-shaped `E8` path that now reproducibly yields `07 80 7A 50 26 D1`, then immediately send that exact `7A` frame back. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "07 80 7A 50 26 D1" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7a5026d1.txt ``` ### HE11: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 7A 50 26 ??` is `56`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7a5026.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any new non-heartbeat response after the `7A` echo or mirror - a stable second-stage family after `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - recurrence of `FA`, `7A`, or another new `50`-region family - any visible panel behavior change beyond the usual `CONNECT NOT ACT` ### 2026-05-13 `7A` Echo Follow-Up Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7a5026d1.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7a5026.txt` Result summary: - Both runs again point to the host-shaped `E8` step as the meaningful branch trigger. - In group 1, `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` reproduced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` in both tests. - The exact-echo run was the cleanest: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` produced one `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - exact echo `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` produced only heartbeat afterwards - The host-shaped mirror run behaved like the earlier `FA` tests: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` produced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` twice - host-shaped `00 00 7A 50 26 56` then only drained one more `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` followed by heartbeat - In group 2, both tests were heartbeat-only after the same sequence. Interpretation: - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` is now a confirmed reproducible response family on the host-shaped `E8` branch. - But directly echoing `7A`, whether exact or host-shaped, still did not create a second-stage exchange, visible state change, or reusable session behavior. - This makes `7A` look more like another readable/event family emitted by the branch, not yet like the next host command the panel expects. - The asymmetry is useful: - host-shaped `E8` can provoke `7A` - `7A` itself does not obviously provoke anything back Best current model of the `E8` branch: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` is the active stimulus. - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` is the most reproducible downstream response in that branch. - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` and `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` remain side-family observations, but neither has overtaken `7A` as the strongest lead. ### HE12: Nearby Host-Shaped `E8` Neighbors Test whether the `7A` branch is specific to `E8`, or whether nearby host-shaped commands in the same region also provoke structured responses. Checksums: - `00 00 E7 40 30 CD` - `00 00 E9 40 30 C3` - `00 00 EA 40 30 C0` #### HE12a: Host-Shaped `E7` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E7 40 30 CD" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e7.txt ``` #### HE12b: Host-Shaped `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e9.txt ``` #### HE12c: Host-Shaped `EA` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EA 40 30 C0" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-ea.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any non-heartbeat response after `E7`, `E9`, or `EA` - recurrence of `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - recurrence of `07 80 FA 50 26 51` or `07 C0 7A 50 A6 11` - any new stable family that suggests `E8` belongs to a broader selector block ### 2026-05-13 `E8` Neighbor Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e7.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e9.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-ea.txt` Result summary: - `E7`, `E9`, and `EA` do not behave the same way, so this is not a simple "everything around `E8` lands in the same branch" region. - All three effects only appeared in group 1. Group 2 was heartbeat-only in every run. Observed outputs: | Host step | Structured result | | --- | --- | | `00 00 E7 40 30 CD` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `00 00 E9 40 30 C3` | produced `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | | `00 00 EA 40 30 C0` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` | Interpretation: - `E8` still appears special, because it is the one that most cleanly enters the reproducible `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` branch. - `E9` is the first nearby neighbor to produce a clearly related but distinct `7A`-family frame: - `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - `E7` and `EA` look more like they bias the panel toward known heartbeat-family transients (`07 80 40 40 30 ED` and `07 80 C0 40 30 6D`) rather than the `7A` / `FA` branch. - So the emerging picture is not a broad contiguous "E* equals same page" block, but a mixed neighborhood where nearby host-shaped values steer the panel into different transient/readable families. Best current follow-up: - treat `E9` as the strongest neighbor lead - test exact and host-shaped handling of `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - optionally compare `E8` vs `E9` timing to see whether the differing `7A` payloads reflect selector choice or timing/context ### HE13: Exact Echo Of `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` Recreate the `E9` neighbor path, then immediately send the exact `7A`-family response back to the panel. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "07 80 7A 28 D3 5C" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7a28d35c.txt ``` ### HE14: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 7A 28 D3 ??` is `DB`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 7A 28 D3 DB" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7a28d3.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any non-heartbeat response after the exact or host-shaped `7A 28 D3` frame - a repeat of `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - crossover into the `E8`-style `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` or `07 80 FA 50 26 51` branch - any new stable family that suggests `E9` is a second entry point into the same broader selector surface ### 2026-05-13 `E9` Mirror Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7a28d35c.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7a28d3.txt` Result summary: - `E9` cleanly reproduced its `7A`-family response in group 1 in both tests: - `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - Exact echo `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` produced only heartbeat afterwards. - Host-shaped mirror `00 00 7A 28 D3 DB` did not open a new stage either; it only drained more copies of `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` before falling back to heartbeat. - Group 2 was heartbeat-only in both tests. Interpretation: - `E9` behaves very much like the `E8` branch structurally: - the host-shaped `E9` step is the active stimulus - the downstream `7A` response is real and reproducible - but directly echoing or mirroring that `7A` response does not advance the exchange - So `E8` and `E9` now look like sibling selector-style entry points into related but distinct `7A`-family outputs: - `E8` -> `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - `E9` -> `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - This strengthens the idea that the `Ex` region may be selecting pages or classes of status rather than carrying the real session-advance command. Best current next move: - test more nearby `Ex` values to see whether this is a broader selector strip - or try explicit host queries for the downstream family bytes (`00 -> 7A`, `00 -> FA`) after `E8`/`E9` selection ### HE15: Continue Outward In The `Ex` Neighborhood Push one step farther out from the now-interesting `E8` / `E9` region and see whether the selector-like behavior continues, shifts family again, or collapses back into heartbeat-only behavior. Checksums: - `00 00 E6 40 30 CC` - `00 00 EB 40 30 C1` - `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` #### HE15a: Host-Shaped `E6` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E6 40 30 CC" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e6.txt ``` #### HE15b: Host-Shaped `EB` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EB 40 30 C1" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-eb.txt ``` #### HE15c: Host-Shaped `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-ec.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any new non-heartbeat response after `E6`, `EB`, or `EC` - recurrence of the `E8`-style `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` or `E9`-style `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - recurrence of known heartbeat-family transients like `07 80 40 40 30 ED` or `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - any additional family that strengthens the idea of a selector strip across the `Ex` region ### 2026-05-13 Outward `Ex` Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-e6.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-eb.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-neighbor-ec.txt` Result summary: - `E6` and `EB` behaved the same way: - no immediate structured reply at the `Ex` step - the following heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - `EC` produced a new structured family in group 1: - `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - As with the other recent selector tests, all interesting behavior was group 1 only. Group 2 was heartbeat-only. Observed outputs: | Host step | Structured result | | --- | --- | | `00 00 E6 40 30 CC` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `00 00 EB 40 30 C1` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` | produced `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | Interpretation: - The `Ex` neighborhood is continuing to look like a selector-like strip with mixed outcomes, not a uniform command class. - `E6`, `E7`, and `EB` now cluster together as values that bias into the `07 80 40 40 30 ED` heartbeat-family transient. - `E8` and `E9` open distinct `7A`-family responses: - `E8` -> `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - `E9` -> `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - `EC` now extends that pattern one step further with a new sibling: - `EC` -> `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - `EA` remains its own case steering toward `07 80 C0 40 30 6D`. Best current follow-up: - treat `EC` as the next strong lead and test exact/host-shaped handling of `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - optionally try `ED` next to see whether the `7B` branch continues ### HE16: Exact Echo Of `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` Recreate the `EC` selector path, then immediately send the exact `7B`-family response back to the panel. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 7B 50 26 D0" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7b5026d0.txt ``` ### HE17: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 7B 50 26 ??` is `57`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7b5026.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any non-heartbeat response after the exact or host-shaped `7B 50 26` frame - a repeat of `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - crossover into the `7A`-family branches or any new sibling family - any sign that `EC` is a second-stage exchange rather than just another selector-produced readable response ### 2026-05-13 `EC` Mirror Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-7b5026d0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-7b5026.txt` Result summary: - `EC` did not behave exactly like the earlier `E8` / `E9` branches. - In the host-shaped mirror run: - `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` reproduced `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` in group 1 - host-shaped mirror `00 00 7B 50 26 57` did not advance the exchange; it only drained one more `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` and then returned to heartbeat - In the exact-echo run: - the `EC` selector step itself did not expose the `7B` family inside the immediate read window - but exact echo `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` produced a fresh new family: `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` - that new family appeared twice in group 1, then the run returned to heartbeat - Group 2 was heartbeat-only in both runs. Interpretation: - `EC` is the first `Ex` selector case so far where the exact downstream echo appears to matter more than the host-shaped mirror. - That makes the `7B` branch more interesting than the `7A` branches: - `E8` / `E9` downstream `7A` echoes did not produce a clean second-stage family - exact `7B` echo produced `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` - `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` is now a strong follow-up target. It may be: - a second-stage response - a different page/family reached through exact `7B` echo - or a context-specific branch member that only appears on the exact-echo path Best current follow-up: - test exact and host-shaped handling of `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` - optionally compare whether exact `EC -> 7B` echo is timing-sensitive, since the host-shaped mirror path did not reach the same family ### HE18: Exact Echo Of `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` Recreate the `EC -> 7B` exact-echo branch, then immediately send the new `2F 95 09` family frame back exactly as seen. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 7B 50 26 D0" --frame "07 C0 2F 95 09 2E" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-2f95092e.txt ``` ### HE19: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 2F 95 09 ??` is `E9`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 7B 50 26 D0" --frame "00 00 2F 95 09 E9" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-2f9509.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any non-heartbeat response after the exact or host-shaped `2F 95 09` frame - a repeat of `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` - any fresh family after the `2F` stage that suggests a real chained exchange - any sign that the `EC -> 7B -> 2F` path is the closest thing yet to a proper request/response ladder ### 2026-05-13 `2F` Mirror Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-2f95092e.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-2f9509.txt` Result summary: - These runs did **not** extend the `EC -> 7B -> 2F` path into a stable next stage. - Instead, group 1 shifted the `EC` selector response itself into a new sibling family: - `07 80 FB 50 26 50` - That happened in both runs, before the `2F` follow-up frame was even sent. - After that: - exact `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` produced only heartbeat - host-shaped `00 00 2F 95 09 E9` also produced only heartbeat - Group 2 was heartbeat-only in both tests. Observed group-1 shape: | Step | Exact-echo run | Host-mirror run | | --- | --- | --- | | `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` x2 | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` x3 | | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | heartbeat only | heartbeat only | | `2F` follow-up | heartbeat only | heartbeat only | Interpretation: - We did **not** get a reproducible chained reply to the `2F` stage. - The more important finding is that the `EC` branch itself is context-sensitive and can emit at least two sibling downstream families: - `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - `07 80 FB 50 26 50` - That makes the `EC` branch look more like a selector into a family space than a strict linear ladder. - `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` is still real from the earlier run, but these follow-ups did not confirm it as the next stable step in an ongoing exchange. Best current model: - We are getting closer to a *structured* understanding of the RCP: certain host-side `Ex` values reliably push it into specific response families. - But we are **not yet** at a stable "conversation" where the panel is clearly accepting our last reply and moving to the next deterministic turn. - Right now the strongest evidence is for: - selector-like host entries (`E8`, `E9`, `EC`) - family-specific downstream responses (`7A`, `7B`, `FB`) - occasional exact-echo sensitivity on some branches - but not a fully reproducible multi-turn protocol ladder yet ### HE20: `EC` Timing / Context Split Try to separate whether `EC` chooses `7B` vs `FB` because of timing around the selector step, or because of the deeper branch context. #### HE20a: `EC` With Shorter Spacing ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.10 --read-after-frame 0.25 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-short-spacing.txt ``` #### HE20b: `EC` With Longer Spacing ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.35 --read-after-frame 0.35 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-long-spacing.txt ``` #### HE20c: `EC` Without Leading `A0` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-no-a0.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - one setup consistently yielding `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` - another setup consistently yielding `07 80 FB 50 26 50` - evidence that leading `A0` is part of the selector context rather than just a neutral primer ### HE21: Exact Echo Of `07 80 FB 50 26 50` If `FB` is a real sibling branch, exact echoing it may show whether it behaves more like `7B` or like the inert `7A` families. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 FB 50 26 50" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-fb502650.txt ``` ### HE22: Host-Shaped Mirror Of `07 80 FB 50 26 50` Host-shaped checksum for `00 00 FB 50 26 ??` is `D7`. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 FB 50 26 D7" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-fb5026.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - any non-heartbeat response after exact or host-shaped `FB` - crossover from `FB` into `2F`, `7B`, or another fresh family - evidence that `FB` is a meaningful downstream branch rather than just a selector-side variant ### 2026-05-13 `EC` Timing And `FB` Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-short-spacing.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-long-spacing.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-ec-no-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-exact-fb502650.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-echo-host-fb5026.txt` #### HE20: Timing / Context Split Observed outcomes: | Setup | Group-1 result | | --- | --- | | short spacing (`0.10 s`) | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | long spacing (`0.35 s`) | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | no leading `A0` | `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` | Interpretation: - The `A0` lead-in matters a lot for the `EC` branch. - With `A0` present, both short and long spacing still favored `07 80 7B 50 26 D0`. - Without `A0`, `EC` collapsed back into the known heartbeat-family transient `07 80 C0 40 30 6D`. - So the best current read is that `A0` is part of the selector context for the `EC -> 7B/FB` family space, not just a neutral primer. - Timing still may matter for `7B` vs `FB`, but this batch says context matters more strongly than spacing in the tested range. #### HE21 / HE22: `FB` Echo Handling Observed outcomes: | Setup | Group-1 result | | --- | --- | | exact `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | `EC` again produced `07 80 7B 50 26 D0`; exact `FB` echo produced no new family | | host-shaped `00 00 FB 50 26 D7` | `EC` produced `07 80 7B 50 26 D0`; host-shaped `FB` mirror produced no new family | Interpretation: - `FB` did not behave like a meaningful next-turn reply target. - Both exact and host-shaped `FB` handling fell flat after the `EC` selector produced a `7B` response in these runs. - That weakens the idea that `FB` is a stable downstream branch command. It now looks more like a sibling family observation that can appear on the `EC` branch, but not something the panel predictably wants answered. Best current `EC` model: - `A0 + EC` can open a selector-like family space. - In that family space: - `7B` is the most stable downstream response so far - `FB` is real, but less stable and not yet actionable - without `A0`, `EC` falls back toward heartbeat-family behavior - This is closer to a controlled state map than where we started, but it is still not a stable multi-turn "conversation" ladder. ### HE23: Does `A0` Also Context `E8` And `E9`? The `EC` branch now strongly suggests that leading `A0` is part of branch selection context rather than just a neutral primer. These tests ask whether the same is true for `E8` and `E9`. #### HE23a: `E8` Without Leading `A0` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-e8-no-a0.txt ``` #### HE23b: `E9` Without Leading `A0` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-e9-no-a0.txt ``` #### HE23c: `A0` Then `E8` Control Repeat This is just the known-good comparison run so the no-`A0` tests can be read against a fresh control captured in the same phase of work. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-e8-with-a0-control.txt ``` #### HE23d: `A0` Then `E9` Control Repeat ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-heartbeat-e9-with-a0-control.txt ``` What would count as a hit: - `E8` or `E9` without `A0` still producing their known branches: - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` - `E8` or `E9` without `A0` collapsing into heartbeat-family transients like `07 80 40 40 30 ED` or `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - a clear difference between no-`A0` and with-`A0` controls that would promote `A0` from "possible primer" to "general selector context" ### 2026-05-13 `A0` Context Test For `E8` / `E9` Captures: - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-e8-no-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-e9-no-a0.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-e8-with-a0-control.txt` - `captures/rcp-heartbeat-e9-with-a0-control.txt` Observed outcomes: | Setup | Group-1 result | | --- | --- | | `E8` without `A0` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `E9` without `A0` | later heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `A0 -> E8` control | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `A0 -> E9` control | heartbeat only in this repeat | Interpretation: - `E8` now clearly matches the `EC` pattern in one important way: without leading `A0`, it falls back into heartbeat-family behavior instead of opening its `7A` branch. - `E9` without `A0` also fell back to the same heartbeat-family transient `07 80 40 40 30 ED`. - So `A0` is now more plausibly a broader selector-context opener, not just an `EC`-specific quirk. - However, `A0` is **not** sufficient to make every selector deterministic: the `A0 -> E9` control repeat produced only heartbeat in this run, even though earlier `A0 -> E9` work did produce `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C`. Best current read: - `A0` looks necessary or at least strongly supportive for entering the `E8` and `EC` family spaces. - `E9` remains more timing- or state-sensitive than `E8`; `A0` helps define the context, but does not guarantee the `7A 28 D3` branch on every clean repeat. - This strengthens the state-map model: - no `A0` -> selector values tend to collapse into heartbeat-family transients - with `A0` -> some selector values can open structured family spaces ### HE24: Can Something Other Than `A0` Open The `Ex` Selector Surface? Goal: - Determine whether `A0` is the main gate into the `E8` / `E9` / `EC` selector surface, or whether other known meaningful host frames can provide similar context. Strategy: - Keep the selector fixed. - Change only the leading context frame. - Use a small set of context candidates that have already shown real protocol significance elsewhere: - `00 00 A0 00 80 7A` as the known-good context - `00 00 90 00 80 4A` because `90` has previously behaved like setup/context - `00 00 AF 00 80 75` because `AF` has produced structured responses in other sequences - bare heartbeat `00 00 00 00 80 DA` as a minimal host-present control What would count as a hit: - a non-`A0` context causing `E8`, `E9`, or `EC` to open the same structured branch we normally associate with `A0` - a non-`A0` context causing a different but stable structured family - all non-`A0` contexts collapsing to heartbeat-family transients, which would make `A0` look much more like the main gate #### HE24a: `90` As Context For `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-e8.txt ``` #### HE24b: `90` As Context For `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-e9.txt ``` #### HE24c: `90` As Context For `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-ec.txt ``` #### HE24d: `AF` As Context For `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-e8.txt ``` #### HE24e: `AF` As Context For `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-e9.txt ``` #### HE24f: `AF` As Context For `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-ec.txt ``` #### HE24g: Bare Heartbeat Context For `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-hb-e8.txt ``` #### HE24h: Bare Heartbeat Context For `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-hb-e9.txt ``` #### HE24i: Bare Heartbeat Context For `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-hb-ec.txt ``` Recommended run order: 1. `HE24c` (`90 -> EC`) 2. `HE24f` (`AF -> EC`) 3. `HE24i` (heartbeat -> `EC`) 4. `HE24a` / `HE24b` (`90 -> E8/E9`) 5. `HE24d` / `HE24e` (`AF -> E8/E9`) 6. `HE24g` / `HE24h` (heartbeat -> `E8/E9`) That order keeps the most stateful selector (`EC`) first, which should tell us quickly whether `A0` is special or whether there is a broader family of context openers. ### 2026-05-13 Non-`A0` Context Ladder Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-context-90-e8.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-90-e9.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-90-ec.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-e8.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-e9.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-ec.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-hb-e8.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-hb-e9.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-hb-ec.txt` Observed group-1 outcomes: | Context -> selector | Result | | --- | --- | | `90 -> E8` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `90 -> E9` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | | `90 -> EC` | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | `AF -> E8` | `07 80 FA 50 26 51` | | `AF -> E9` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | | `AF -> EC` | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | `heartbeat -> E8` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `heartbeat -> E9` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | | `heartbeat -> EC` | no `7B`; initial heartbeat provoked `07 80 40 40 30 ED`, then `EC` stayed heartbeat-only | Interpretation: - `A0` is **not** the only context opener for the `Ex` selector surface. - `90` can stand in as a strong general context opener for all three tested selectors: - `E8` -> `7A 50 26` - `E9` -> `7A 28 D3` - `EC` -> `7B 50 26` - `AF` can also open meaningful selector branches: - `AF -> E9` matched the known `E9` family - `AF -> EC` matched the known `EC` family - `AF -> E8` shifted to the alternate sibling `FA 50 26` family instead of `7A 50 26` - Bare heartbeat is enough context for `E8` and `E9`, but **not** for `EC`. `EC` still appears stricter and more context-sensitive than the `E8/E9` branch pair. Best current read: - We are not looking at a single hard gate byte. - We are looking at a broader **context-opener family**: - `A0` - `90` - `AF` - and, for at least `E8/E9`, even bare heartbeat context - `E8` and `E9` seem easier to open than `EC`. - `EC` may require a stronger or richer context class than plain heartbeat. - `AF -> E8 -> FA 50 26` is especially interesting because it suggests the context frame can influence **which sibling family** the selector opens, not just whether it opens anything at all. ### HE25: Do `90` And `AF` Change Downstream Behavior Too? Goal: - Check whether `90` and `AF` only change the *first* family opened by a selector, or whether they also change what happens when we answer that family. Method: - Use a context opener (`90` or `AF`) - Open a known selector branch (`E8`, `E9`, or `EC`) - Immediately send the exact downstream family frame that branch produced - Compare whether the follow-up behavior differs by opener This keeps the selector and downstream family fixed while changing only the context opener. What would count as a hit: - the same downstream exact echo behaving differently under `90` vs `AF` - one opener causing a new second-stage family while the other falls flat - the opener changing whether the branch drains to heartbeat or continues #### HE25a: `90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 50 26` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "07 80 7A 50 26 D1" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-e8-exact-7a5026.txt ``` #### HE25b: `AF -> E8 -> exact FA 50 26` This uses the family that `AF -> E8` actually opened. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "07 80 FA 50 26 51" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-e8-exact-fa5026.txt ``` #### HE25c: `90 -> E9 -> exact 7A 28 D3` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "07 80 7A 28 D3 5C" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-e9-exact-7a28d3.txt ``` #### HE25d: `AF -> E9 -> exact 7A 28 D3` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "07 80 7A 28 D3 5C" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-e9-exact-7a28d3.txt ``` #### HE25e: `90 -> EC -> exact 7B 50 26` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 7B 50 26 D0" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-ec-exact-7b5026.txt ``` #### HE25f: `AF -> EC -> exact 7B 50 26` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 7B 50 26 D0" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-af-ec-exact-7b5026.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE25e` (`90 -> EC -> exact 7B`) 2. `HE25f` (`AF -> EC -> exact 7B`) 3. `HE25c` / `HE25d` (`90/AF -> E9 -> exact 7A 28 D3`) 4. `HE25a` / `HE25b` (`90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 50 26`, `AF -> E8 -> exact FA 50 26`) That order keeps the most stateful selector first again, while still checking whether opener choice changes the downstream echo behavior on the simpler `E8` and `E9` branches. ### 2026-05-13 Opener-Dependent Downstream Behavior Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-context-90-e8-exact-7a5026.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-e8-exact-fa5026.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-90-e9-exact-7a28d3.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-e9-exact-7a28d3.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-90-ec-exact-7b5026.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-af-ec-exact-7b5026.txt` Observed group-1 outcomes: | Setup | Selector result | Exact-echo follow-up result | | --- | --- | --- | | `90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 50 26` | `07 80 7A 58 26 D9` | heartbeat only after sending `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `AF -> E8 -> exact FA 50 26` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | heartbeat only after sending `07 80 FA 50 26 51` | | `90 -> E9 -> exact 7A 28 D3` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | heartbeat only | | `AF -> E9 -> exact 7A 28 D3` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | heartbeat only | | `90 -> EC -> exact 7B 50 26` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | heartbeat only after sending `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | `AF -> EC -> exact 7B 50 26` | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | heartbeat only | Interpretation: - No opener produced a stable second-stage reply to the downstream exact echo. - So, for now, opener choice seems to affect the **branch entry** much more than the **reply-to-the-branch** behavior. - But opener choice definitely matters at the selector result level: - `90 -> E8` shifted the response from the familiar `7A 50 26` family to the sibling `7A 58 26 D9` - `90 -> EC` shifted the response from `7B 50 26 D0` to the sibling `FB 50 26 50` - `AF -> EC` preserved the `7B 50 26 D0` branch - `E9` looks more stable across openers than `E8` and `EC`: both `90` and `AF` still opened `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` Most important takeaway: - opener bytes are not just yes/no "permissions" for the selector surface - they can change **which sibling family** a selector lands in - but once that family appears, echoing the expected downstream frame still did not create a reproducible next turn Best current model: - context opener selects or biases a family page - selector byte chooses within that opened space - downstream family frames still look more like readable responses than clear host prompts Best next move: - when a selector result shifts under a different opener, answer the **actually observed** downstream frame instead of the previously known sibling frame - the strongest immediate candidates are: - `90 -> E8 -> exact 07 80 7A 58 26 D9` - `90 -> EC -> exact 07 80 FB 50 26 50` ### HE26: Answer The Actually Observed `90`-Shifted Family Goal: - Now that `90` is clearly able to shift the family/page opened by `E8` and `EC`, answer the *observed* downstream frame rather than the older sibling family we expected from earlier runs. Hypothesis: - If opener choice is selecting a page or family, the correct next probe is the exact frame from that page, not a nearby family member learned under another opener. What would count as a hit: - any fresh non-heartbeat family after the exact observed-frame echo - a reproducible second-stage branch that only appears when the echoed frame matches the opener-selected family - visible evidence that page-matched echoing behaves differently from sibling-mismatched echoing #### HE26a: `90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 58 26` Under `90`, `E8` produced `07 80 7A 58 26 D9`, so answer that exact frame. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "07 80 7A 58 26 D9" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-e8-exact-7a5826.txt ``` #### HE26b: `90 -> EC -> exact FB 50 26` Under `90`, `EC` produced `07 80 FB 50 26 50`, so answer that exact frame. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "07 80 FB 50 26 50" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-context-90-ec-exact-fb5026.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE26b` (`90 -> EC -> exact FB 50 26`) 2. `HE26a` (`90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 58 26`) `EC` still looks like the more stateful branch, so it has the better chance of showing whether page-matched echoing matters. ### 2026-05-13 Page-Matched Echo Result Captures: - `captures/rcp-context-90-e8-exact-7a5826.txt` - `captures/rcp-context-90-ec-exact-fb5026.txt` Observed outcomes: | Setup | Selector result | Page-matched exact echo result | | --- | --- | --- | | `90 -> E8 -> exact 7A 58 26` | actual run produced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | sending `07 80 7A 58 26 D9` did not open a new family; the queued `7A 50 26 D1` drained, then heartbeat | | `90 -> EC -> exact FB 50 26` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | sending `07 80 FB 50 26 50` did not open a new family; then heartbeat | Interpretation: - Page-matched echoing still did **not** create a stable second-stage exchange. - For `EC`, this is fairly clean: the observed `FB 50 26` family was echoed back exactly and the branch still collapsed to heartbeat. - For `E8`, the run is interesting in a different way: - the earlier `90 -> E8` test had produced sibling `07 80 7A 58 26 D9` - this repeat instead produced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - sending the page-matched `7A 58 26 D9` frame did not redirect or extend the branch; the observed `7A 50 26 D1` simply drained out - So the strongest conclusion is still: opener choice clearly biases the family/page the selector lands in, but the downstream family frames still do not behave like obvious prompts the host is expected to answer. Best current read: - We are getting better at steering the RCP into specific family spaces. - We are **not yet** seeing evidence that matching the page family in our reply is enough to advance to a deterministic next turn. - That keeps the focus on: - context opener - selector - family chosen rather than on any confirmed reply ladder after the family appears. ### HE27: Host State/Value Probing Ladder Goal: - Test whether the hidden rule lives in the opener `state/value` bytes, the selector `state/value` bytes, or both. - Keep the structure disciplined: 1. vary opener `state/value` with selector fixed 2. vary selector `state/value` with opener fixed This is the first intentionally broad state/value ladder aimed at the selector-surface model, rather than raw command discovery. What would count as a hit: - a state/value change shifting the opened family while command bytes stay fixed - one state/value pair acting like a stronger opener than another - a selector state/value pair opening a family that the baseline selector does not - repeated collapse to the same family regardless of state/value, which would tell us that the command byte matters more than those fields on that branch #### Tier 1: Opener State/Value Sweep With Fixed Selectors Use the same selector each time and vary only the opener payload. State/value variants: - opener baseline: `00 80` - opener alt 1: `20 D0` - opener alt 2: `40 30` - opener alt 3: `60 30` Checksums: - `90 00 80` -> `00 00 90 00 80 4A` - `90 20 D0` -> `00 00 90 20 D0 3A` - `90 40 30` -> `00 00 90 40 30 BA` - `90 60 30` -> `00 00 90 60 30 9A` - `AF 00 80` -> `00 00 AF 00 80 75` - `AF 20 D0` -> `00 00 AF 20 D0 05` - `AF 40 30` -> `00 00 AF 40 30 85` - `AF 60 30` -> `00 00 AF 60 30 A5` ##### HE27a: `90` payload sweep into `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-e8-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 20 D0 3A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-e8-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 40 30 BA" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-e8-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 60 30 9A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-e8-6030.txt ``` ##### HE27b: `90` payload sweep into `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-ec-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 20 D0 3A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-ec-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 40 30 BA" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-ec-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 60 30 9A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-90-ec-6030.txt ``` ##### HE27c: `AF` payload sweep into `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-e8-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 20 D0 05" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-e8-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 40 30 85" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-e8-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 60 30 A5" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-e8-6030.txt ``` ##### HE27d: `AF` payload sweep into `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-ec-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 20 D0 05" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-ec-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 40 30 85" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-ec-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 AF 60 30 A5" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-af-ec-6030.txt ``` #### Tier 2: Selector State/Value Sweep With Fixed Openers Now hold the opener steady and vary only selector `state/value`. Selector checksums: - `E8 00 80` -> `00 00 E8 00 80 32` - `E8 20 D0` -> `00 00 E8 20 D0 42` - `E8 40 30` -> `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` - `E8 60 30` -> `00 00 E8 60 30 E2` - `E9 00 80` -> `00 00 E9 00 80 33` - `E9 20 D0` -> `00 00 E9 20 D0 43` - `E9 40 30` -> `00 00 E9 40 30 C3` - `E9 60 30` -> `00 00 E9 60 30 E3` - `EC 00 80` -> `00 00 EC 00 80 36` - `EC 20 D0` -> `00 00 EC 20 D0 46` - `EC 40 30` -> `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` - `EC 60 30` -> `00 00 EC 60 30 E6` ##### HE27e: `90` opener with selector payload sweep on `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 00 80 32" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e8-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 20 D0 42" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e8-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e8-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 60 30 E2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e8-6030.txt ``` ##### HE27f: `90` opener with selector payload sweep on `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 00 80 33" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e9-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 20 D0 43" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e9-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e9-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 60 30 E3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-e9-6030.txt ``` ##### HE27g: `90` opener with selector payload sweep on `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 00 80 36" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-ec-0080.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 20 D0 46" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-ec-20d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-ec-4030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 60 30 E6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-statevalue-sel-ec-6030.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE27b` (`90` payload sweep into `EC`) 2. `HE27d` (`AF` payload sweep into `EC`) 3. `HE27g` (`90` opener with selector payload sweep on `EC`) 4. `HE27a` (`90` payload sweep into `E8`) 5. `HE27c` (`AF` payload sweep into `E8`) 6. `HE27e` / `HE27f` (`90` opener with selector payload sweep on `E8` / `E9`) That keeps the most stateful branch (`EC`) in front while still giving us a comprehensive way to separate opener payload effects from selector payload effects. ### 2026-05-13 State/Value Probing Ladder Result This ladder gave the clearest evidence so far that the `state/value` bytes are meaningful and can steer family selection. #### Tier 1: Opener Payload Sweep ##### `90` opener into `E8` | Opener payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `90 00 80` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `90 20 D0` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `90 40 30` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `90 60 30` | `07 80 FA 50 26 51` | Read: - `90` opener payload is meaningful on `E8`. - `60 30` flips the branch from `7A 50 26` into sibling `FA 50 26`. ##### `90` opener into `EC` | Opener payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `90 00 80` | `07 80 7B 58 26 D8` | | `90 20 D0` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | | `90 40 30` | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | | `90 60 30` | `07 80 7B 50 26 D0` | Read: - `90` opener payload clearly changes which sibling family/page `EC` opens. - `00 80` gives a shifted `7B 58 26` variant. - `20 D0` flips to `FB 50 26`. - `40 30` and `60 30` both land on `7B 50 26`. ##### `AF` opener into `E8` | Opener payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `AF 00 80` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `AF 20 D0` | `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` | | `AF 40 30` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `AF 60 30` | `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | Read: - `AF` opener payload can either preserve the `E8 -> 7A` branch or collapse it back into heartbeat-family transients. - `20 D0` and `60 30` appear hostile or misdirecting on this branch. ##### `AF` opener into `EC` | Opener payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `AF 00 80` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | | `AF 20 D0` | later heartbeat-family `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `AF 40 30` | later heartbeat-family `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | | `AF 60 30` | later heartbeat-family `07 80 40 40 30 ED` | Read: - `AF` opener payload is even more selective on `EC`. - Only the baseline `00 80` payload opened a structured family. - `20 D0`, `40 30`, and `60 30` all collapsed into heartbeat-family behavior. #### Tier 2: Selector Payload Sweep Under Fixed `90 00 80` ##### `E8` selector payload | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `E8 00 80` | `07 80 7A 40 30 D7` | | `E8 20 D0` | `07 80 7A 48 3A D5` | | `E8 40 30` | `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` | | `E8 60 30` | `07 80 7A 58 26 D9` | ##### `E9` selector payload | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `E9 00 80` | `07 80 7A 20 D8 5F` | | `E9 20 D0` | `07 80 7A 24 FD 7E` | | `E9 40 30` | `07 80 7A 28 D3 5C` | | `E9 60 30` | `07 80 7A 2C D3 58` | ##### `EC` selector payload | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `EC 00 80` | `07 80 FB 40 30 56` | | `EC 20 D0` | `07 80 E4 40 30 49` | | `EC 40 30` | `07 80 FB 50 26 50` | | `EC 60 30` | `07 80 7B 58 26 D8` | Interpretation: - Selector `state/value` bytes are strongly meaningful. - On `E8` and `E9`, the response family byte stayed at `7A`, while the following bytes changed systematically with selector payload. - On `EC`, selector payload changes were even stronger: the family itself shifted among `FB`, `E4`, and `7B`. - This is the best current evidence that: - command byte picks a broad selector region - `state/value` bytes pick a page, subtype, or data class within that region Best current model after HE27: - opener command matters - opener payload matters - selector command matters - selector payload matters - the protocol surface is more parameterized than we first thought - but we still do not have a stable proof that the downstream family frames are host prompts rather than readable response blocks ### HE28: Off-Grid Pair Test Goal: - Test whether the two payload bytes behave more like an accepted **pair code** than two semantically independent fields. Idea: - We already know these combinations are meaningful on several branches: - `00 80` - `20 D0` - `40 30` - `60 30` - Now try mixed combinations that were **not** part of the known-good set: - `00 30` - `20 30` - `40 D0` - `60 80` What would count as a hit: - mixed pairs behaving just like nearby known-good pairs, which would support more independent byte meanings - mixed pairs mostly collapsing to heartbeat/transients or producing odd outliers, which would support the "2-byte code" model - one branch accepting mixed pairs while another rejects them, which would mean pairing rules are selector-specific Checksums: - `E8 00 30` -> `00 00 E8 00 30 82` - `E8 20 30` -> `00 00 E8 20 30 A2` - `E8 40 D0` -> `00 00 E8 40 D0 22` - `E8 60 80` -> `00 00 E8 60 80 52` - `E9 00 30` -> `00 00 E9 00 30 83` - `E9 20 30` -> `00 00 E9 20 30 A3` - `E9 40 D0` -> `00 00 E9 40 D0 23` - `E9 60 80` -> `00 00 E9 60 80 53` - `EC 00 30` -> `00 00 EC 00 30 86` - `EC 20 30` -> `00 00 EC 20 30 A6` - `EC 40 D0` -> `00 00 EC 40 D0 26` - `EC 60 80` -> `00 00 EC 60 80 56` Keep the opener fixed to the strongest baseline opener for each local map: - use `90 00 80` before `E8`, `E9`, and `EC` #### HE28a: Off-grid selector pairs on `E8` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 00 30 82" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e8-0030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 20 30 A2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e8-2030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 D0 22" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e8-40d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 60 80 52" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e8-6080.txt ``` #### HE28b: Off-grid selector pairs on `E9` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 00 30 83" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e9-0030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 20 30 A3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e9-2030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 D0 23" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e9-40d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 60 80 53" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-e9-6080.txt ``` #### HE28c: Off-grid selector pairs on `EC` ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 00 30 86" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-ec-0030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 20 30 A6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-ec-2030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 D0 26" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-ec-40d0.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 60 80 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-pairtest-ec-6080.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE28c` (`EC` off-grid pairs) 2. `HE28a` (`E8` off-grid pairs) 3. `HE28b` (`E9` off-grid pairs) That keeps the most expressive selector first, where the pair-code hypothesis is most likely to show itself clearly. ### 2026-05-13 Off-Grid Pair Result This ladder weakens the strict "only a few accepted 2-byte pair codes" model. #### `E8` off-grid pairs under `90 00 80` | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `E8 00 30` | `07 80 7A 40 26 C1` | | `E8 20 30` | `07 80 FA 48 26 49` | | `E8 40 D0` | `07 80 7A 50 3A CD` | | `E8 60 80` | `07 80 7A 58 30 CF` | #### `E9` off-grid pairs under `90 00 80` | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `E9 00 30` | `07 80 7A 20 D3 54` | | `E9 20 30` | `07 80 7A 24 D3 50` | | `E9 40 D0` | `07 80 7A 28 DD 52` | | `E9 60 80` | `07 80 7A 2C D8 53` | #### `EC` off-grid pairs under `90 00 80` | Selector payload | Result | | --- | --- | | `EC 00 30` | `07 80 7B 40 26 C0` | | `EC 20 30` | `07 80 7B 4C 26 CC` | | `EC 40 D0` | `07 80 FB 50 3A 4C` | | `EC 60 80` | `07 80 7B 58 30 CE` | Interpretation: - The RCP did **not** reject the off-grid mixed combinations. - Instead, it returned structured, checksum-valid sibling families in a highly systematic way. - That makes the strongest current model: - these are still two separate bytes on the wire - and their meanings appear at least partly compositional, not just a small fixed whitelist of accepted pair codes - In other words, the "strict 2-byte enum only" hypothesis is weaker now. - A more likely model is: - selector command chooses a region - first payload byte strongly influences one axis/page - second payload byte also influences the returned subtype/data bytes - some selectors, especially `EC`, can still flip whole sibling families (`7B` vs `FB`) depending on the combination Best current takeaway: - the `state/value` bytes are meaningful - they are not behaving like arbitrary filler - but they also are not behaving like only four hardcoded legal pair tokens - they look more like a small 2-byte parameter space with selector-specific mapping rules ### HE29: Valid-Connection / Camera-Info Stream Fan-Out Goal: - Fan back out from one-shot reads and selector branches into **sustained host-present plus camera-info-like traffic**. - Try to answer a more practical question: can we send a stream that the panel treats as a real CCU/camera connection, even if only enough to change `CONNECT NOT ACT`, light a lamp, or wake a readout? Working idea: - Plain host heartbeat can hold the panel out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` while it is flowing, but it does not by itself produce a stable active session. - The panel may want **both**: - ongoing host presence/cadence - and a rotating set of camera/capability/status pages - We now have several families that are plausible candidates for those pages: - discovery surface: `A0`, `B0`, `B5` - selector surface: `90 -> E8/E9/EC` - host-shaped family mirrors: `7A`, `7B`, `FB` - heartbeat-adjacent base families: `40`, `C0`, `50` What would count as a hit: - the panel stays out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` **and** - a light changes - a numeric readout changes - the LCD changes to something new - or one-shot branches become reusable while the stream is running - repeated non-heartbeat RX beyond the usual single group-1 burst - any sign that the panel begins acting "session alive" rather than merely "host present" Note: - `serial_sequence_probe.py` now supports `--prompt-screen`, so the final screen/light observation can live in the same capture log. Checksums already known: - heartbeat: `00 00 00 00 80 DA` - `A0`: `00 00 A0 00 80 7A` - `B0`: `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` - `B5`: `00 00 B5 00 80 6F` - `90`: `00 00 90 00 80 4A` - `AF`: `00 00 AF 00 80 75` - `E8 40 30`: `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` - `E9 40 30`: `00 00 E9 40 30 C3` - `EC 40 30`: `00 00 EC 40 30 C6` - host `7A 50 26`: `00 00 7A 50 26 56` - host `7A 28 D3`: `00 00 7A 28 D3 DB` - host `7B 50 26`: `00 00 7B 50 26 57` - host `FB 50 26`: `00 00 FB 50 26 D7` - host `FA 50 26`: `00 00 FA 50 26 D6` - host `40 40 30`: `00 00 40 40 30 6A` - host `C0 40 30`: `00 00 C0 40 30 EA` - host `50 40 30`: `00 00 50 40 30 7A` #### HE29a: Discovery carousel under maintained heartbeat Hypothesis: - The panel may want periodic readable capability/status pages, not just a lone one-shot query at boot. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-discovery-carousel.txt ``` Watch for: - later groups reopening `68`, `6C`, or `6D` families - the panel leaving `CONNECT NOT ACT` while the carousel runs - any lamp or readout change #### HE29b: Selector-page carousel under strong `90` context Hypothesis: - The selector surface may actually be a rotating camera-info page set, and the panel may want repeated page selection rather than isolated one-shot use. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --repeat 8 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-selector-carousel.txt ``` Watch for: - later groups still opening `7A`, `7B`, `FB`, or `FA` families - the selector space becoming reusable instead of draining to heartbeat - any visible wake-up on the panel #### HE29c: Direct host-shaped family feed Hypothesis: - The panel may want host-origin camera-state frames that look more like the downstream family blocks than like discovery queries. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 28 D3 DB" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 FB 50 26 D7" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-direct-family-feed.txt ``` Watch for: - any visible panel reaction with no preceding opener/selector steps - whether any of these host-shaped family blocks seem to act like camera values - whether the panel begins sending a different recurring status frame #### HE29d: Hybrid select-then-feed stream Hypothesis: - The panel may want a selector/page choice immediately followed by page data, not just a readback-like query. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E9 40 30 C3" --frame "00 00 7A 28 D3 DB" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --repeat 8 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-hybrid-90.txt ``` Watch for: - whether later groups stop collapsing after the first selector-family burst - whether page-matched host data makes the selector space feel more "live" - any call lamp, tally, or numeric display change #### HE29e: `AF`-biased sibling-family stream Hypothesis: - `AF` changes which sibling family opens; maybe that opener is closer to a real CCU "camera data" context than `90` for some pages. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 FA 50 26 D6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --repeat 8 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-hybrid-af.txt ``` Watch for: - whether `AF` keeps `E8` in the `FA` sibling family more reliably - whether `AF` changes visible panel behavior even if serial RX still looks one-shot #### HE29f: Heartbeat-family base-status feed Hypothesis: - The `40` / `C0` / `50` families may be a base camera-status layer rather than mere "wrong" answers, and the panel may want them as a background stream. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 C0 40 30 EA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 50 40 30 7A" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.12 --read-after-frame 0.06 --repeat-interval 0.15 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-session-fanout-base-status.txt ``` Watch for: - whether this suppresses `CONNECT NOT ACT` more convincingly than plain heartbeat alone - whether any lamp or readout reacts even if selector-space branches do not - whether the panel responds with a recurring non-heartbeat family rather than isolated group-1 bursts Recommended order: 1. `HE29a` discovery carousel 2. `HE29d` hybrid `90` select-then-feed 3. `HE29c` direct host-shaped family feed 4. `HE29f` heartbeat-family base-status feed 5. `HE29b` selector carousel 6. `HE29e` `AF`-biased sibling-family stream Reasoning: - `HE29a` and `HE29d` are the two most plausible "real CCU behavior" guesses: periodic readable pages, or page-select plus page-data. - `HE29c` asks whether the panel can be fed camera-state blocks directly. - `HE29f` is the slightly weirder but still useful branch: maybe the heartbeat-adjacent `40/C0/50` families are actually the base layer the panel wants before richer pages make sense. ### 2026-05-13 HE29 Fan-Out Results Front-panel result first: - No tested HE29 stream changed the visible panel state in a useful way. - No run produced a new LCD state beyond the previously known inactive behavior, and no lamp/readout change was observed. That said, the wire result was not completely dead. #### HE29a: Discovery carousel under maintained heartbeat Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-discovery-carousel.txt` Result: - The sustained `heartbeat -> A0 -> heartbeat -> B0 -> heartbeat -> B5` carousel produced only heartbeat-compatible RX for every group. - None of the older one-shot readable families (`68`, `6C`, `6D`) reopened under this maintained cycle. Read: - Simple repeated discovery-page polling does **not** look like the missing live session traffic. - It also did not make the one-shot readable surface reusable. #### HE29b: Selector carousel under strong `90` context Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-selector-carousel.txt` Result: - Group 1, `90 -> E8`, produced: - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` - `90 -> E9` and `90 -> EC` in the same cycle then stayed heartbeat-only. - Groups 2-8 were heartbeat-only throughout. Read: - Repeating selector-page choice in a rotating carousel still does not sustain a richer session. - The stream appears to spend a single selector-family opening and then collapse back into ordinary heartbeat behavior. #### HE29c: Direct host-shaped family feed Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-direct-family-feed.txt` Result: - Group 1, host-shaped `00 00 7A 50 26 56` produced a new RCP family: - `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` - After that: - host-shaped `7A 28 D3` produced no structured reply - host-shaped `7B 50 26` stayed heartbeat-only - host-shaped `FB 50 26` stayed heartbeat-only - Later groups did not reproduce the `2F 95 C9` family. Read: - This is the first HE29 branch where a pure host-shaped family feed produced a genuinely new structured response. - It still behaved one-shot and did **not** wake the panel visually. - So direct family feed is not enough to create a live connection, but it does look protocol-meaningful. #### HE29d: Hybrid `90` select-then-feed Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-hybrid-90.txt` Result: - Group 1: - `90 -> E8` produced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - immediate host-shaped `7A 50 26` feed produced no next stage - The later `E9` and `EC` portions of the same group stayed heartbeat-only. - Groups 2-8 were heartbeat-only throughout. Read: - Page-select plus matching host feed still does not turn the selector space into a reusable or "live" stream. - This weakens the idea that the missing session is simply "select page, then send that page's payload." #### HE29e: `AF`-biased sibling-family stream Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-hybrid-af.txt` Result: - Group 1: - `AF -> E8` produced `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - host-shaped `FA 50 26` feed produced no next stage - The later `AF -> EC` portion stayed heartbeat-only. - Groups 2-8 were heartbeat-only throughout. Read: - `AF` did not behave like a more realistic camera-data opener in this sustained mixed-stream form. - Even the sibling-family-biased branch still collapsed immediately after the first selector-family burst. #### HE29f: Heartbeat-family base-status feed Log: - `captures/rcp-session-fanout-base-status.txt` Result: - Group 1, host-shaped `00 00 40 40 30 6A` produced a new RCP family: - `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` - The following host-shaped `C0 40 30` and `50 40 30` frames did not open a new visible stage. - Groups 2-10 were heartbeat-only throughout. Read: - This is the second HE29 branch that produced a genuinely new structured family. - So the `40` family is still worth taking seriously as more than a pure "wrong" response bucket. - But, like the `2F 95 C9` branch above, it is still one-shot and did not visibly activate the panel. ### HE29 Overall Read What failed: - No tested sustained stream woke the panel visually. - No tested stream cleared the broader "not really connected" condition. - No tested stream made the selector surface reusable in a stable way. What still matters: - Two new structured families appeared when we treated the known response families as host-origin traffic instead of just things to mirror: - `00 00 7A 50 26 56` -> `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` - `00 00 40 40 30 6A` -> `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` - That strengthens the idea that some of these families are not just passive readback blocks; they can still act as meaningful stimuli from the host side. Best current read after HE29: - The missing active session still does **not** look like: - plain heartbeat - repeated discovery reads - repeated selector-page reads - naive page-select plus matching host feed - The next smarter branch is probably to stay narrow around the two new host-stimulated response families (`2F 95 C9` and `D0 50 26`) and test whether they represent a deeper camera/base-status layer rather than just more one-shot siblings. ### HE30: Targeted Follow-Up On `2F 95 C9` And `D0 50 26` Goal: - Treat the two new HE29 host-stimulated families as real protocol leads: - `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` - `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` - Work out whether they are: - simple one-shot siblings - a deeper base-status layer - or part of a real next-turn exchange that we have not answered correctly yet Strategy: 1. Reproduce each family cleanly and answer **that exact observed family** 2. Try the host-shaped mirror of the observed family 3. Compare the new `2F 95 C9` branch to the older `2F 95 09` branch 4. Probe nearby host-side trigger siblings to see whether the branch is narrow or family-wide 5. Test whether the new family itself works cold after boot, or only as a response branch Checksums: - host `2F 95 C9` -> `00 00 2F 95 C9 29` - host `D0 50 26` -> `00 00 D0 50 26 FC` - older host `2F 95 09` -> `00 00 2F 95 09 E9` - host `7A 58 26` -> `00 00 7A 58 26 5E` - host `7A 50 3A` -> `00 00 7A 50 3A 4A` - host `40 60 30` -> `00 00 40 60 30 4A` #### HE30a: Exact and host-shaped answers to `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` Hypothesis: - If `2F 95 C9` is a real second-stage family, answering the exact observed frame or its host-shaped mirror may produce a cleaner third step than the old `2F 95 09` branch did. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "07 80 2F 95 C9 AE" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-exact-2f95c9.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 2F 95 C9 29" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-host-2f95c9.txt ``` #### HE30b: Compare new `2F 95 C9` with old `2F 95 09` Hypothesis: - The new `2F` branch may be a close sibling of the older `07 C0 2F 95 09 2E` branch from `EC -> 7B`. - If so, sending the older host-shaped `2F 95 09` after provoking the new `2F 95 C9` branch may reveal whether the last data byte is page/subtype rather than a completely separate family. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 2F 95 09 E9" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-host-2f9509-after-2f95c9.txt ``` #### HE30c: Exact and host-shaped answers to `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` Hypothesis: - If `D0 50 26` is a deeper base-status family, it may respond differently to exact and host-shaped answers than the selector-space `7A/7B/FB` families do. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "07 80 D0 50 26 7B" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-exact-d05026.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 D0 50 26 FC" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-host-d05026.txt ``` #### HE30d: Trigger-sibling probes around the `2F 95 C9` branch Hypothesis: - The new `2F 95 C9` branch may not belong only to host `7A 50 26`. - Nearby host-side `7A` siblings might land on related `2F` pages if this is a small camera-data family rather than a single magic value. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 58 26 5E" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-trigger-7a5826.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 3A 4A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-trigger-7a503a.txt ``` #### HE30e: Trigger-sibling probes around the `D0 50 26` branch Hypothesis: - If `D0 50 26` is tied to a broader base-status surface, nearby host-side `40/50/C0` style pages may land on related families. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 50 40 30 7A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-trigger-504030.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 40 60 30 4A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-trigger-406030.txt ``` #### HE30f: Cold-start direct tests of the new host-shaped families Hypothesis: - If these families are really camera/base-status feed pages, they may work directly after boot without needing the earlier provoking host frame. - If they do **not**, they are more likely to be second-stage response branches. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 2F 95 C9 29" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-cold-2f95c9.txt python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 D0 50 26 FC" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --repeat 2 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.30 --read-after-group 0.8 --log captures/rcp-he30-cold-d05026.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE30a` exact/host `2F 95 C9` 2. `HE30c` exact/host `D0 50 26` 3. `HE30f` cold-start direct tests 4. `HE30b` old-vs-new `2F` comparison 5. `HE30d` and `HE30e` trigger-sibling probes Reasoning: - First check whether the new families themselves can be answered meaningfully. - Then check whether they are direct-feed candidates or only response branches. - Only after that spend time mapping nearby siblings. ### 2026-05-13 HE30 Results This ladder did not produce a stable multi-turn exchange, but it did reveal a stronger family structure around both new HE29 branches. #### HE30a: Answering `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` Logs: - `captures/rcp-he30-exact-2f95c9.txt` - `captures/rcp-he30-host-2f95c9.txt` Result: - Group 1, host `00 00 7A 50 26 56` again produced: - `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` - Answering that with either: - exact `07 80 2F 95 C9 AE` - or host `00 00 2F 95 C9 29` produced no new stage. - Group 2 was heartbeat-only in both runs. Read: - `2F 95 C9` is real and reproducible as a one-shot branch under the `7A 50 26` host feed. - But it still does **not** behave like an immediate prompt that the host can simply echo back. #### HE30b: Comparing new `2F 95 C9` to old `2F 95 09` Log: - `captures/rcp-he30-host-2f9509-after-2f95c9.txt` Result: - This run did **not** reproduce the new `2F 95 C9` branch first. - Instead, the initial host heartbeat itself provoked: - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - After that, host `00 00 7A 50 26 56` and host `00 00 2F 95 09 E9` stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - This run did not establish a useful direct relationship between `2F 95 C9` and the older `2F 95 09` branch. - It does reinforce that these branches are timing/context-sensitive and can be pre-empted by fallback-family behavior. #### HE30c: Answering `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` Logs: - `captures/rcp-he30-exact-d05026.txt` - `captures/rcp-he30-host-d05026.txt` Result: - The originally observed `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` did **not** reproduce exactly. - Instead, `00 00 40 40 30 6A` produced sibling families: - exact-answer run: `07 80 50 78 26 D3` - host-answer run: `07 80 50 50 26 FB` - Answering those with either: - exact `07 80 D0 50 26 7B` - or host `00 00 D0 50 26 FC` did not open a new stage. - Group 2 was heartbeat-only in both runs. Read: - The `40`-triggered branch is real, but the stable thing is not a single fixed `D0` family. - It looks more like a **parameterized `50 xx 26` sibling strip** that can vary by context. #### HE30d: `7A` trigger siblings Logs: - `captures/rcp-he30-trigger-7a5826.txt` - `captures/rcp-he30-trigger-7a503a.txt` Result: - `00 00 7A 58 26 5E` produced: - `07 80 2F 65 F2 65` - `00 00 7A 50 3A 4A` produced: - `07 80 2F 95 52 35` - Both appeared in group 1 only. - Group 2 was heartbeat-only. Read: - This is a strong result. - The `7A` host-fed branch is not a single magic trigger for one fixed `2F 95 C9` reply. - It looks like a **family mapping**: host-side `7A ...` variants can produce related `2F ...` response variants. #### HE30e: `40/50` trigger siblings Logs: - `captures/rcp-he30-trigger-504030.txt` - `captures/rcp-he30-trigger-406030.txt` Result: - `00 00 50 40 30 7A` produced: - `07 80 D4 50 26 7F` - `00 00 40 60 30 4A` produced: - `07 80 50 58 26 F3` - Both appeared in group 1 only. - Group 2 was heartbeat-only. Read: - This is the matching strong result on the heartbeat/base-status side. - The `40/50` host-fed branch also looks like a **family mapping**, not a lone one-off response. #### HE30f: Cold-start direct tests Logs: - `captures/rcp-he30-cold-2f95c9.txt` - `captures/rcp-he30-cold-d05026.txt` Result: - Cold host `00 00 2F 95 C9 29` did not reproduce the `2F` branch directly. - Instead, on the second group tail it drifted into: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - Cold host `00 00 D0 50 26 FC` did not reproduce the `D0`/`50` branch directly. - Instead, on the second group tail it drifted into: - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` Read: - These new families do **not** currently look like valid cold-start camera feed pages by themselves. - They look more like second-stage response families or branch-local pages that require earlier context/stimulus. ### HE30 Overall Read Most important change in our model: - We now have good evidence for two additional **parameterized response surfaces**: - host `7A ...` -> RCP `2F ...` - host `40/50 ...` -> RCP `50/D4 ...` Concrete examples: - `7A 50 26` -> `2F 95 C9` - `7A 58 26` -> `2F 65 F2` - `7A 50 3A` -> `2F 95 52` - `40 40 30` -> `50 78 26` or `50 50 26` - `50 40 30` -> `D4 50 26` - `40 60 30` -> `50 58 26` What this suggests: - some host-fed family frames are acting more like **query/page selectors** within a deeper status space - and the resulting RCP families are parameterized, not isolated one-offs What it does **not** yet suggest: - that we have found the full active-session feed - that these second-stage families can simply be echoed back to advance the conversation - that they are valid cold-start traffic on their own Best next move after HE30: - Stay narrow and **dense-map one family at a time**, especially: - the host `7A ...` -> RCP `2F ...` surface - the host `40/50 ...` -> RCP `50/D4 ...` surface - Those now look more promising than continuing to brute-force entirely new top-level selectors. ### HE31: Wake-The-Panel Pass Goal: - Go back to the practical question: can we make the RCP behave more "awake" on the front panel, even if we still do not know the full PT2 conversation? - Specifically watch for: - leaving `CONNECT NOT ACT` - any lamp change - any numeric readout change - selector/query branches becoming reusable while the run is active Why this pass is different: - We now know a lot of the protocol is structured, but broad mixed streams did not wake the panel. - That suggests the wake condition may depend more on: - **boot timing** - **consistent page identity** - **slower realistic cadence** - or a **background base-status layer plus a single active page** than on throwing many valid-looking families at it at once. What we are testing here: 1. very early boot-window traffic 2. one stable page repeated instead of carousels 3. base-status background plus one stable page 4. CALL event path while a stable session-like stream is present #### HE31a: Early-boot `90 -> E8` repeated page Hypothesis: - The panel may only accept wake/session framing very early after power-on. - `90 -> E8` is one of the cleanest structured selectors we have, so treat it like a plausible "current camera page" and present it immediately. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.2 --delay 0.0 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --repeat 12 --frame-interval 0.15 --read-after-frame 0.08 --repeat-interval 0.35 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-he31-boot-e8-page.txt ``` #### HE31b: Early-boot base-status plus `E8` page Hypothesis: - The panel may want a base status layer before it treats a page feed as live. - Use the strongest current base-status candidates together with the clean `E8` page family. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.2 --delay 0.0 --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.15 --read-after-frame 0.08 --repeat-interval 0.35 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-he31-boot-base-plus-e8.txt ``` #### HE31c: Slow realistic `E8` page cadence Hypothesis: - Our earlier fan-outs may have been too dense or too "computer-ish." - Try a slower, more boring, repeated page cadence as if a CCU is refreshing one visible control page. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --repeat 20 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-frame 0.10 --repeat-interval 0.80 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-he31-slow-e8-page.txt ``` #### HE31d: Slow realistic base-status only cadence Hypothesis: - If the wake condition is mostly "camera is alive and reporting status", the base-status side may matter more than the selector side at first. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 50 40 30 7A" --repeat 20 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-frame 0.10 --repeat-interval 0.80 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-he31-slow-base-status.txt ``` #### HE31e: Base-status background plus stable `EC` page Hypothesis: - `EC` is stricter than `E8/E9` and may correspond to a more central "connected" page. - Feed a background base-status layer and then one stable `EC` page only. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --repeat 15 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.10 --repeat-interval 0.60 --read-after-group 0.20 --log captures/rcp-he31-base-plus-ec.txt ``` #### HE31f: CALL while stable `E8` page is present Hypothesis: - The panel may only treat operator events as meaningful when it sees a stable enough background page/session context. - Keep a simple `E8` page stream running, then inject the known synthetic CALL pair into the same group. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.12 --repeat-interval 0.60 --read-after-group 0.25 --log captures/rcp-he31-e8-plus-call.txt ``` #### HE31g: CALL while base-status background is present Hypothesis: - Same idea as above, but maybe the event path wants base-status presence more than selector-page presence. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 1.0 --frame "00 00 40 40 30 6A" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 15 80 00 CF" --frame "00 00 15 00 00 4F" --repeat 10 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-frame 0.12 --repeat-interval 0.60 --read-after-group 0.25 --log captures/rcp-he31-base-plus-call.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE31a` early-boot `E8` page 2. `HE31b` early-boot base-status plus `E8` 3. `HE31c` slow `E8` page cadence 4. `HE31e` base-status plus `EC` 5. `HE31f` `E8` plus CALL 6. `HE31d` slow base-status only 7. `HE31g` base-status plus CALL Reasoning: - The most likely miss so far is timing and stability, not absence of valid bytes. - So this pass biases toward: - early boot - one stable page - one stable background layer - and one meaningful operator event ### 2026-05-13 HE31 Results Front-panel result: - No HE31 run visibly woke the panel. - No useful LCD, lamp, or numeric-display change was recorded. Note on the `PANEL` lines in some logs: - A few captures contain the next command line pasted into the `--prompt-screen` prompt. - Those lines are not treated as evidence of panel state. #### HE31a: Early-boot `E8` page Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-boot-e8-page.txt` Result: - Group 1 did produce the expected early structured branch: - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` - Groups 2-12 then stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - Starting very early after boot did **not** turn the `E8` page stream into a reusable or session-like wake path. - It still behaved like a one-shot branch that immediately collapsed. #### HE31b: Early-boot base-status plus `E8` Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-boot-base-plus-e8.txt` Result: - Group 1 briefly produced: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - After that, the whole run stayed heartbeat-compatible. - No later `E8` page family reopened. Read: - Adding a base-status layer at boot did **not** help `E8`; it actually biased the run toward the known fallback/transient family. #### HE31c: Slow realistic `E8` page cadence Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-slow-e8-page.txt` Result: - Group 1 produced the familiar: - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - Groups 2-20 then stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - A slower, more boring cadence did not make the `E8` page stream feel more alive to the panel. - So the earlier dense fan-outs likely were **not** failing just because they were too fast or too "computer-ish." #### HE31d: Slow base-status only cadence Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-slow-base-status.txt` Result: - Group 1 produced: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - Groups 2-20 then stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - Repeating only the base-status side also failed to wake the panel. - It behaved like a fallback-presence layer, not a true active-session layer. #### HE31e: Base-status plus stable `EC` Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-base-plus-ec.txt` Result: - Group 1 produced: - `07 80 40 60 30 CD` - After that, the full run stayed heartbeat-compatible. - `EC` did **not** reopen a stable `7B` page under this background. Read: - Even the stricter `EC` branch did not become more useful under a stable base-status background. - This argues against "just add one richer page on top of base status" as the missing wake condition. #### HE31f: `E8` page plus CALL Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-e8-plus-call.txt` Result: - Group 1 again showed the early `E8` branch: - `07 80 FA 50 26 51` - The following synthetic CALL pair: - `00 00 15 80 00 CF` - `00 00 15 00 00 4F` produced only heartbeat-compatible traffic. - No `0x45` CALL-family reply appeared. Read: - A stable `E8` page context does **not** make the CALL synthetic event path become richer or more session-like. - In this context, CALL actually looks less interesting than in the earlier dedicated CALL work. #### HE31g: Base-status plus CALL Log: - `captures/rcp-he31-base-plus-call.txt` Result: - Group 1 produced: - `07 80 40 40 30 ED` - The synthetic CALL pair after that stayed heartbeat-compatible only. - No `0x45` CALL-family reply appeared. Read: - Base-status presence also does **not** make CALL act like a wake/session trigger. ### HE31 Overall Read The wake-oriented pass answers a few important questions pretty cleanly: - Early boot timing alone is **not** enough. - One stable repeated page alone is **not** enough. - Base-status background plus one page is **not** enough. - CALL injected into those contexts is **not** enough. Most important practical conclusion: - The panel still does not look like it is waiting for merely: - a believable page stream - a believable base-status stream - or an operator event inside those streams So the missing wake condition is probably something more specific, such as: - a CCU identity/mode declaration we still have not found - a different class of background page entirely - or a stricter startup sequence/order than our current page-first models ### HE32: Best-Shot Startup / Handshake Ladder Goal: - Try the **most plausible remaining startup shapes** rather than broad exploration. - Bias toward sequences that feel more like a real CCU boot: - declare identity or capability once - select a page once - then maintain a simpler background/value stream Why these are the best next options: - HE31 suggests the panel is **not** waking on: - simple early boot timing - one stable repeated page - base-status plus one page - CALL inside those contexts - So the stronger remaining hypothesis is that we are missing a more **structured startup order**, not just more valid traffic. Current best candidate building blocks: - possible identity / discovery: - `00 00 A0 00 80 7A` - `00 00 B0 00 80 6A` - `00 00 B5 00 80 6F` - possible opener / page-class: - `00 00 90 00 80 4A` - `00 00 AF 00 80 75` - possible maintained page feed: - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` - `00 00 7A 50 26 56` - possible maintained background: - `00 00 00 00 80 DA` - `00 00 40 40 30 6A` - `00 00 50 40 30 7A` What would count as a hit: - any visible wake-up on the panel - selector/query families reopening later in the same run - a new recurring non-heartbeat family replacing the current idle rhythm - a run that behaves differently from the usual "group 1 only, then collapse" #### HE32a: Discovery-first, then `90 -> E8`, then maintained `7A` Hypothesis: - The panel may want to see readable identity/capability pages before it accepts a page/value stream. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 B0 00 80 6A" --frame "00 00 B5 00 80 6F" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-group 2.0 --log captures/rcp-he32-discovery-then-e8-maintain.txt ``` #### HE32b: `A0 -> 90 -> E8`, then heartbeat-only maintenance Hypothesis: - The missing piece may be a one-time selector/opening chain, with heartbeat alone sufficient afterward. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he32-a0-90-e8-heartbeat-tail.txt ``` #### HE32c: `A0 -> 90 -> E8`, then `7A`-only maintenance Hypothesis: - Heartbeat may only mean "host present," while `7A 50 26` may be the real page value stream the panel wants once opened. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he32-a0-90-e8-7a-tail.txt ``` #### HE32d: `AF -> 90 -> E8`, then maintained `FA` Hypothesis: - `AF` may be a more camera-flavored opener, and `FA 50 26` may be the sibling page/value family this context actually wants. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 FA 50 26 D6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 FA 50 26 D6" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 FA 50 26 D6" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-group 2.0 --log captures/rcp-he32-af-90-e8-fa-tail.txt ``` #### HE32e: `A0 -> AF -> EC`, then maintained `7B` Hypothesis: - `EC` is stricter than `E8`; it may need both a general opener and a mode opener before the page/value feed makes sense. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 A0 00 80 7A" --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.20 --read-after-group 2.0 --log captures/rcp-he32-a0-af-ec-7b-tail.txt ``` #### HE32f: Repeated `90` identity beacon, then single `E8` page Hypothesis: - The panel may want to see a short identity/mode beacon first, before any page selection at all. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 90 00 80 4A" --frame "00 00 E8 40 30 C2" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7A 50 26 56" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 2.5 --log captures/rcp-he32-90-beacon-then-e8.txt ``` #### HE32g: Repeated `AF` identity beacon, then single `EC` page Hypothesis: - Same idea as above, but aimed at the stricter `EC` branch. ```powershell python scripts/serial_sequence_probe.py --port COM5 --prompt --prompt-screen --pre-read 0.5 --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 AF 00 80 75" --frame "00 00 EC 40 30 C6" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 7B 50 26 57" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 2.5 --log captures/rcp-he32-af-beacon-then-ec.txt ``` Recommended order: 1. `HE32a` discovery-first then `E8` 2. `HE32b` `A0 -> 90 -> E8` then heartbeat tail 3. `HE32c` `A0 -> 90 -> E8` then `7A` tail 4. `HE32e` `A0 -> AF -> EC` then `7B` tail 5. `HE32f` `90` beacon then `E8` 6. `HE32d` `AF -> 90 -> E8` then `FA` tail 7. `HE32g` `AF` beacon then `EC` Reasoning: - These are the strongest remaining handshake-shaped guesses: - discovery before page - stacked openers rather than alternative openers - set-once then maintain-later - beacon first, page second ### 2026-05-13 HE32 Results Front-panel result: - No HE32 startup/handshake sequence visibly woke the panel. - No useful LCD, lamp, or readout change was observed. Serially, though, the ladder was still informative: the panel did not become "live", but several of the startup-shaped sequences diverted into alternate one-shot response families instead of opening the expected page streams. #### HE32a: Discovery-first, then `90 -> E8`, then maintained `7A` Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-discovery-then-e8-maintain.txt` Result: - `A0` produced no structured reply in this run. - `B0` produced the known readable block: - `07 80 6C 40 30 C1` - `B5` then produced no new stage. - The later `90 -> E8 -> 7A` portion stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - Discovery-first ordering did **not** turn later page maintenance into a live session. - It mostly behaved like "consume one discovery/readable block, then collapse." #### HE32b: `A0 -> 90 -> E8`, then heartbeat-only maintenance Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-a0-90-e8-heartbeat-tail.txt` Result: - `A0 -> 90` produced a new family: - `07 80 64 40 30 C9` - After that, `E8`, `7A`, and the heartbeat tail stayed heartbeat-compatible. Read: - This is a useful new lead. - `A0 -> 90` does not look like a wake path, but it does look like a distinct startup/opening branch rather than random failure. #### HE32c: `A0 -> 90 -> E8`, then `7A`-only maintenance Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-a0-90-e8-7a-tail.txt` Result: - This reproduced the same startup branch more strongly: - `07 80 64 40 30 C9` - Repeated `7A 50 26` after that did not open a new stage. Read: - `64 40 30` now looks real, not a one-off accident. - It is associated with the `A0 -> 90` stacked-opener idea, not with a live maintained page stream. #### HE32d: `AF -> 90 -> E8`, then maintained `FA` Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-af-90-e8-fa-tail.txt` Result: - `AF -> 90` also diverted into the same family: - `07 80 64 40 30 C9` - The later `E8` and repeated `FA` host feed stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - `64 40 30` is not unique to `A0 -> 90`; `AF -> 90` can also land there. - That makes it look more like a startup/opening class than a branch-local oddity. #### HE32e: `A0 -> AF -> EC`, then maintained `7B` Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-a0-af-ec-7b-tail.txt` Result: - `A0 -> AF` produced another distinct family: - `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F` - `EC` and the repeated `7B` host feed after that stayed heartbeat-compatible. Read: - This is another useful startup-shaped diversion: `A0 -> AF` appears to open a discovery/status-like family of its own. - But again, it did **not** enable the later page/value stream. #### HE32f: Repeated `90` beacon, then single `E8` page Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-90-beacon-then-e8.txt` Result: - This capture contains two runs. - Run 1: - repeated `90` beacon produced `07 80 64 40 30 C9` - Run 2: - repeated `90` beacon produced `07 80 E4 40 30 49` - In both runs, the later `E8 -> 7A` portion stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - Repeated `90` by itself is not waking the panel, but it is clearly not meaningless. - It can steer the panel into at least two startup/readable families: - `64 40 30` - `E4 40 30` #### HE32g: Repeated `AF` beacon, then single `EC` page Log: - `captures/rcp-he32-af-beacon-then-ec.txt` Result: - Repeated `AF` beacon produced: - `07 80 0D 04 EB 3F` - The later `EC -> 7B` portion stayed heartbeat-compatible only. Read: - Repeated `AF` also looks meaningful as a startup beacon, but again only in the sense of opening a one-shot family, not in waking the panel into a live session. ### HE32 Overall Read This ladder did not wake the panel, but it did sharpen the handshake model: - the panel is still **not** waking on our best "declare then maintain" startup sequences - but stacked openers and beacon-like traffic are clearly meaningful New startup-shaped families observed: - `A0 -> 90` or `AF -> 90` -> `07 80 64 40 30 C9` - repeated `90` beacon -> `07 80 64 40 30 C9` or `07 80 E4 40 30 49` - `A0 -> AF` -> `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F` - repeated `AF` beacon -> `07 80 0D 04 EB 3F` Best current interpretation: - `90` and `AF` are increasingly looking like **mode/class beacons or startup selectors**, not just ordinary page openers - but the missing wake condition is still something beyond those beacon effects - once one of these startup families is opened, the later page/value stream still collapses to heartbeat instead of becoming active So HE32 rules out another important family of guesses: - the panel does not appear to wake just because we got the startup **order** closer to reality It may still require: - a different class of maintained traffic after those beacon stages - a missing hardware/state signal on another wire - or a specific startup family we have touched indirectly but not yet maintained ### 2026-05-13 CAM POWER Context Retests Goal: - Re-test the older `CAM POWER` exact echo inside stronger modern contexts: - stable `E8` page context - base-status context - See whether `CAM POWER` starts to behave like a meaningful event once the panel already has more believable host/session traffic behind it. Logs found: - `captures/rcp-cam-power-e8-context-exact-echo.txt` - `captures/rcp-cam-power-base-context-exact-echo.txt` Note: - I do **not** currently see separate host-shaped context reruns in `captures/`. This section only reflects the two exact-echo context captures that are present. #### CAM POWER exact echo inside `E8` page context Sequence: - repeating startup page stream: - `00 00 90 00 80 4A` - `00 00 E8 40 30 C2` - `00 00 7A 50 26 56` - button response: - `00 00 07 80 00 DD` Result: - The page stream initially produced the known `E8` family: - `07 80 7A 50 26 D1` - During the run, the panel emitted repeated `CAM POWER` event frames: - `00 00 07 80 00 DD` - When the exact echo was finally sent back, no new structured response family appeared afterward. - The run remained on button-event / heartbeat-class behavior with no visible wake-up. Read: - Stronger page context does **not** make the older exact `CAM POWER` echo turn into a session-advancing command. - It does show that `CAM POWER` traffic can coexist with the `E8` page stream without disrupting the panel into a richer state. #### CAM POWER exact echo inside base-status context Sequence: - repeating startup base-status stream: - `00 00 40 40 30 6A` - `00 00 00 00 80 DA` - `00 00 50 40 30 7A` - button response: - `00 00 07 80 00 DD` Result: - The first startup cycle briefly showed: - `07 80 C0 40 30 6D` - After that, the run settled into plain heartbeat-compatible traffic. - No useful new structured response appeared after the base-status context. - No visible wake-up occurred. Read: - Base-status context also does **not** make the exact `CAM POWER` echo behave like a meaningful wake/session event. - Compared with the `E8` context run, this one looks even flatter. ### Context-Retest Read What changed: - We re-tested `CAM POWER` exact echo inside stronger session-like backgrounds. What did **not** change: - no panel wake-up - no new session-like serial stage - no evidence that `CAM POWER` becomes a useful host/CCU handshake element when wrapped in `E8` page traffic or base-status traffic Best current read: - `CAM POWER` still looks much more like an **outbound panel-origin operator event** than a wake/session negotiation hook. - `CALL` remains the more protocol-interesting operator event family.