aiden/Sony-rcp
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
962d0e5dec448c1a4d03722623c71f4cc8ead4ab
Sony-rcp/docs/discovery-notes.md
Aiden 962d0e5dec Run 1
2026-05-14 01:01:42 +10:00

8591 lines
341 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

# 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
### HE33: Maintain The Startup-Beacon Families
Goal:
- Follow the strongest new HE32 clue directly.
- Treat the startup-beacon families as possible **maintained classes** rather
than merely one-shot opening responses.
Working idea:
- `90` and `AF` increasingly look like startup beacons or mode/class selectors.
- In HE32 we immediately switched from those beacon effects into `E8`/`EC` page
traffic.
- That may have been too eager.
- Instead, try:
- open `64 40 30 C9`, `E4 40 30 49`, `0D 04 AB 7F`, or `0D 04 EB 3F`
- then maintain **that class**
- and only optionally add heartbeat alongside it
What would count as a hit:
- the startup family reappears or stays reusable
- a new recurring non-heartbeat family appears later in the same run
- the panel visibly changes state
- `CONNECT NOT ACT` behavior changes while the maintained class is running
Checksums for host-shaped maintained-class frames:
- host `64 40 30` -> `00 00 64 40 30 0E`
- host `E4 40 30` -> `00 00 E4 40 30 8E`
- host `0D 04 AB` -> `00 00 0D 04 AB F8`
- host `0D 04 EB` -> `00 00 0D 04 EB B8`
#### HE33a: Repeated `90` beacon, then maintain `64 40 30`
Hypothesis:
- `64 40 30` may be the real maintained class after `90`, not an intermediate
page on the way to `E8`.
```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 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-90-then-644030.txt
```
#### HE33b: Repeated `90` beacon, then maintain `E4 40 30`
Hypothesis:
- The alternate `90` beacon branch may want `E4 40 30` as its maintained class.
```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 E4 40 30 8E" --frame "00 00 E4 40 30 8E" --frame "00 00 E4 40 30 8E" --frame "00 00 E4 40 30 8E" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-90-then-e44030.txt
```
#### HE33c: `A0 -> 90`, then maintain `64 40 30`
Hypothesis:
- `A0 -> 90` may be a more deterministic way to enter the `64 40 30` startup
family than bare repeated `90`.
```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 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-a0-90-then-644030.txt
```
#### HE33d: Repeated `AF` beacon, then maintain `0D 04 EB`
Hypothesis:
- The repeated-`AF` startup branch may want the `0D 04 EB` class maintained.
```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 0D 04 EB B8" --frame "00 00 0D 04 EB B8" --frame "00 00 0D 04 EB B8" --frame "00 00 0D 04 EB B8" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-af-then-0d04eb.txt
```
#### HE33e: `A0 -> AF`, then maintain `0D 04 AB`
Hypothesis:
- `A0 -> AF` may open a slightly different startup/status class than repeated
`AF`, and it may want `0D 04 AB` instead of `0D 04 EB`.
```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 0D 04 AB F8" --frame "00 00 0D 04 AB F8" --frame "00 00 0D 04 AB F8" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 0D 04 AB F8" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-a0-af-then-0d04ab.txt
```
#### HE33f: `90` startup family with heartbeat interleaved
Hypothesis:
- The maintained class may still need a low-rate host-presence heartbeat beside
it, even if the page-class itself is the important thing.
```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 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 64 40 30 0E" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-90-644030-with-heartbeat.txt
```
#### HE33g: `AF` startup family with heartbeat interleaved
Hypothesis:
- Same logic as above, but for the `AF`-derived startup family.
```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 0D 04 EB B8" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 0D 04 EB B8" --frame "00 00 00 00 80 DA" --frame "00 00 0D 04 EB B8" --read-after-frame 0.15 --frame-interval 0.25 --read-after-group 3.0 --log captures/rcp-he33-af-0d04eb-with-heartbeat.txt
```
Recommended order:
1. `HE33a` repeated `90`, then `64 40 30`
2. `HE33c` `A0 -> 90`, then `64 40 30`
3. `HE33d` repeated `AF`, then `0D 04 EB`
4. `HE33e` `A0 -> AF`, then `0D 04 AB`
5. `HE33f` `90` family with heartbeat
6. `HE33g` `AF` family with heartbeat
7. `HE33b` repeated `90`, then `E4 40 30`
Reasoning:
- `64 40 30` looks like the strongest `90`-side startup family so far.
- `0D 04 AB/EB` is the matching `AF`-side family.
- The cleanest question first is simply:
can maintaining those classes do anything at all?
### HE33 Results
Practical outcome:
- No visible panel wake-up.
- No useful LCD change beyond the already familiar inactive behavior.
- Maintaining the startup-beacon families did **not** turn them into live
reusable session classes.
Serial outcome:
- The beacon families themselves are real and reproducible.
- But once opened, host-shaped maintenance of those same families mostly just
drained the initial one-shot response and then fell back to
heartbeat-compatible traffic.
#### HE33a: repeated `90`, then maintain `64 40 30`
Observed:
- second `90` produced:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- first host `64 40 30` produced one more:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- later host `64 40 30` frames were heartbeat-compatible only
Interpretation:
- `64 40 30` is a real startup-family surface.
- But simply maintaining host `64 40 30` does not keep that branch open.
#### HE33b: repeated `90`, then maintain `E4 40 30`
Observed:
- repeated `90` still opened:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- host `E4 40 30` did **not** pivot it into a stable `E4`-maintained state
- later traffic was heartbeat-compatible only
Interpretation:
- The `90` beacon can still prefer `64` on this run.
- Host `E4 40 30` did not make the alternate `E4` startup family reusable.
#### HE33c: `A0 -> 90`, then maintain `64 40 30`
Observed:
- `A0 -> 90` produced:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- later host `64 40 30` frames were heartbeat-compatible only
Interpretation:
- `A0 -> 90` is still a clean opener for the `64` family.
- But, again, the family did not become maintainable as a live background
class.
#### HE33d: repeated `AF`, then maintain `0D 04 EB`
Observed:
- repeated `AF` produced:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- first host `0D 04 EB` drained one more:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- later host `0D 04 EB` frames were heartbeat-compatible only
Interpretation:
- On this run, repeated `AF` did **not** prefer the older `EB`-suffixed
startup family; it stayed on the `AB` family instead.
- That makes the `AF` startup side look more slippery than the `90` side.
#### HE33e: `A0 -> AF`, then maintain `0D 04 AB`
Observed:
- `A0 -> AF` produced repeated:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- host `0D 04 AB` continued to drain more `AB` responses briefly
- then the run collapsed back to heartbeat-compatible traffic
Interpretation:
- `A0 -> AF` remains the cleanest opener for the `AB` startup family.
- It is stronger than the bare repeated-`AF` case, but still not enough to
create a sustained live session layer.
#### HE33f: `90` family with heartbeat interleaved
Observed:
- repeated `90` produced:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- host `64 40 30` plus heartbeat still fell back to heartbeat-compatible
traffic after that
Interpretation:
- Interleaving heartbeat did not make the `64` family maintainable.
#### HE33g: `AF` family with heartbeat interleaved
Observed:
- repeated `AF` produced:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- host `0D 04 EB` plus heartbeat did not reopen a live `EB`/`AB` maintained
branch
Interpretation:
- Heartbeat beside the `AF` startup family also did not help.
HE33 conclusion:
- The `90`/`AF` startup-beacon families are real, but they still behave like
one-shot startup surfaces rather than the missing maintained wake/session
stream.
- `90` is the cleaner side:
- it repeatedly lands on `64 40 30`
- `AF` is the sloppier side:
- it can land on `AB` or `EB`, and on this pass it mostly preferred `AB`
- Maintaining those family classes directly did not wake the panel, did not
make later traffic reusable, and did not create a stable active state.
### 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.
### DIP Switch Experiment Ladder
Current known baseline:
- all 8 DIP positions are currently **off**
- switches are grouped as:
- `S2` = 4 positions
- `S3` = 4 positions
- together they likely feed MCU pins `43-50`
Goal:
- determine whether the DIP switches change the panel's startup personality,
serial behavior, or wake/session behavior
### Safety / Method
Use this method for every DIP test:
1. Photograph the current DIP positions before changing anything.
2. Change **one switch only**.
3. Reassemble only as much as needed for safe power-on.
4. Power up the panel.
5. Observe behavior **before connecting serial**.
6. Then run the normal serial baseline checks.
7. Power down fully before changing the next switch.
8. Return to the all-off baseline between non-adjacent tests.
Record for each run:
- exact DIP pattern
- LCD startup text
- whether the active light changes
- whether `CONNECT NOT ACT` appears, and when
- whether idle heartbeat is still `00 00 00 00 80 DA`
- whether known probes still behave the same:
- `A0`
- `A0 -> 90`
- `A0 -> AF`
- any new button behavior in idle state
- any complete silence / obvious baud or protocol change
### Naming Convention
Use a simple notation in notes/logs:
- baseline = `S2=0000 S3=0000`
- example single change:
- `S2=1000 S3=0000`
If physical numbering is unclear, first pick one fixed convention and stick to
it:
- `S2-1` .. `S2-4`
- `S3-1` .. `S3-4`
### Phase 1: Single-Bit Sweep
Goal:
- find out whether any single DIP bit has an obvious effect on startup,
protocol, or front-panel behavior
Run these eight tests, always starting from all-off baseline:
1. `S2-1` on, all others off
2. `S2-2` on, all others off
3. `S2-3` on, all others off
4. `S2-4` on, all others off
5. `S3-1` on, all others off
6. `S3-2` on, all others off
7. `S3-3` on, all others off
8. `S3-4` on, all others off
For each test:
- power-cycle
- watch LCD/startup state
- check for idle heartbeat
- try one minimal probe set:
- idle listen
- `A0`
- `A0 -> 90`
- `A0 -> AF`
What would count as a hit:
- panel boots into a different visible mode
- panel no longer shows `CONNECT NOT ACT`
- heartbeat changes or disappears
- known startup families change:
- `64 40 30`
- `0D 04 AB`
- `0D 04 EB`
- `E4 40 30`
- buttons become active in idle
### Phase 2: Group Identity Test
Only do this after Phase 1.
Goal:
- see whether one whole DIP bank behaves like an address nibble or mode nibble
Run these four tests:
1. all `S2` on, `S3` all off
2. all `S2` off, all `S3` on
3. all `S2` on, all `S3` on
4. return to all-off baseline and confirm behavior is restored
What this can reveal:
- one bank may control personality while the other controls address
- one bank may do nothing while the other changes the panel sharply
- all-on may expose service/test behavior that single-bit changes do not
### Phase 3: Follow-Up Only If A Bit Matters
If Phase 1 reveals a promising bit, branch carefully:
1. repeat that same switch setting twice to confirm reproducibility
2. test neighboring bits in the same bank
3. test that bit plus one neighboring bit
4. compare:
- startup text
- heartbeat
- `A0 -> 90`
- `A0 -> AF`
- `E8` / `EC` selector behavior
### Good First Serial Checks Per DIP Setting
Keep the serial side small at first.
Recommended order:
1. idle listen only
2. repeating heartbeat only
3. `A0`
4. `A0 -> 90`
5. `A0 -> AF`
Only if something changes meaningfully, then test:
- `E8`
- `E9`
- `EC`
- CALL synthetic trigger
### Strong Cautions
- Do not change multiple unknown DIP bits at once in the first pass.
- Do not assume `ON` means logic high; it may actually pull the line low.
- Some switches may only be sampled at cold boot, not warm reset.
- A strange setting may stop normal serial output entirely; that is still a
useful result.
- If one setting produces a dramatically different boot state, stop and record
it before going wider.
### DIP Phase 1 Results
Practical visible result:
- Most single-bit DIP settings looked the same on the panel.
- User-reported visible exception:
- the **first DIP-switch setting** briefly showed a small cursor on the LCD
for a few seconds
- Otherwise, no single-bit setting visibly woke the panel or cleared
`CONNECT NOT ACT`.
Serial result:
- The DIP switches are **not** inert.
- They do not appear to change the basic heartbeat personality dramatically, but
they **do** affect which startup-beacon family opens.
Stable observations across most tested single-bit settings:
- idle heartbeat remained present
- plain `A0` remained heartbeat-compatible only
- `A0 -> AF` usually still opened:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- `A0 -> 90` usually still opened:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
Important exceptions:
#### `S2-1`
- user saw a temporary small LCD cursor
- `A0 -> 90` still opened:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- but `A0 -> AF` went flat:
- no RX in the recorded run
- heartbeat-only stimulus produced:
- `07 80 C0 40 30 6D`
Read:
- `S2-1` appears to change startup/UI behavior and may suppress or disturb the
`AF`-family startup branch.
#### `S2-3`
- `A0 -> 90` collapsed to heartbeat-only
- `A0 -> AF` still opened:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- heartbeat-only stimulus produced:
- `07 80 40 40 30 ED`
Read:
- `S2-3` appears to suppress the `90`/`64` startup-beacon branch while leaving
the `AF`/`AB` side alive.
#### `S3-1`
- `A0 -> 90` opened a **different** startup family:
- `07 80 E4 40 30 49`
instead of the more common:
- `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- `A0 -> AF` still opened:
- `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
- heartbeat-only stimulus produced:
- `07 80 40 40 30 ED`
Read:
- `S3-1` is the clearest proof so far that the DIP bank can steer the panel
into a different startup-family page rather than merely changing noise or
timing.
#### Other tested single-bit positions
Settings that still looked broadly "normal" in the first pass:
- `S2-2`
- `S2-4`
- `S3-3`
- `S3-4`
These generally preserved:
- `A0 -> 90` -> `07 80 64 40 30 C9`
- `A0 -> AF` -> `07 80 0D 04 AB 7F`
Heartbeat-only transients varied by setting:
- `S2-2`, `S2-3`, `S2-4`, `S3-1`, `S3-3` tended toward:
- `07 80 40 40 30 ED`
- `S2-1`, `S3-2`, `S3-4` tended toward:
- `07 80 C0 40 30 6D`
Missing / not-found logs:
- `captures/dip-s3-1-a0.txt`
- `captures/dip-s3-2-a0-90.txt`
So the current first-pass read should stay slightly cautious around those two
cases.
### DIP Phase 1 Read
Best current interpretation:
- the DIP switches likely do participate in **panel personality / startup mode
selection**
- they do **not** appear to erase or obviously reconfigure the panel in a
catastrophic way during normal testing
- they can bias:
- whether the `90` startup branch opens
- which `90` family appears (`64` vs `E4`)
- whether the `AF` branch survives cleanly
Most important next follow-ups:
1. repeat `S3-1` to confirm the `E4` startup-family shift
2. repeat `S2-3` to confirm suppression of the `90` branch
3. repeat `S2-1` to confirm suppression/instability of the `AF` branch and the
brief LCD cursor
### HE34: Broad "Dot The I's" Command Sweep
Goal:
- run a broad automated sweep of many checksum-valid commands
- log any response that is not explainable as ordinary heartbeat traffic
- do one "clean conscience" pass so we can say we really checked the space
Why this is worth doing:
- we now know the startup-family surface is real and DIP-sensitive
- but we still have not done one final broad, automation-first pass with the
current tools and classifier
Recommended order:
1. all-off DIP baseline
2. optional repeat under `S3-1` because it opens the `E4` startup family
3. optional repeat under `S2-3` because it suppresses the `90` branch
#### HE34a: Cold direct sweep, all-off baseline
This tests all command bytes `0x00-0xFF` in the observed host frame shape:
- prefix: `00 00`
- state/value: `00 80`
The script:
- logs heartbeat-compatible windows quietly
- logs any anomaly explicitly
- pauses on anomaly so you can power-cycle and continue
```powershell
python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix1s 0x00 --prefix2s 0x00 --commands 0x00-0xFF --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3.0 --after-each 0.8 --after 2.0 --pause-on-anomaly --log captures/he34-direct-alloff-00-80.txt
```
#### HE34b: Cold direct sweep, `S3-1` active
Same sweep, but under the DIP setting that shifted the startup-family page from
`64` to `E4`.
```powershell
python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix1s 0x00 --prefix2s 0x00 --commands 0x00-0xFF --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3.0 --after-each 0.8 --after 2.0 --pause-on-anomaly --log captures/he34-direct-s3-1-00-80.txt
```
#### HE34c: Cold direct sweep, `S2-3` active
Same sweep, but under the DIP setting that suppressed the `90` branch in the
first pass.
```powershell
python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix1s 0x00 --prefix2s 0x00 --commands 0x00-0xFF --states 0x00 --values 0x80 --settle 3.0 --after-each 0.8 --after 2.0 --pause-on-anomaly --log captures/he34-direct-s2-3-00-80.txt
```
#### Optional HE34d: Smaller second pass with alternate state/value
If the first pass looks too flat, do a smaller alternate parameter pass:
- commands: `0x00-0xFF`
- state/value: `20 D0`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix1s 0x00 --prefix2s 0x00 --commands 0x00-0xFF --states 0x20 --values 0xD0 --settle 3.0 --after-each 0.8 --after 2.0 --pause-on-anomaly --log captures/he34-direct-alloff-20-d0.txt
```
Read:
- a broad sweep like this is not expected to magically wake the panel
- what it *can* do is reveal:
- overlooked command families
- DIP-sensitive outliers
- whether the current known families are really the whole visible surface
### HE34 Initial Result: Broad `20 D0` Sweep
Run observed:
- capture file present:
- `captures/he34-direct-alloff-20-d0-no-pwr.txt`
Important panel-side observation:
- unlike the more ordinary broad sweeps, `CONNECT NOT ACT` reportedly **did not
appear after the first anomaly**
- instead, the panel stayed out of that state until much later in the run
- on the latest run, the user interrupted with `Ctrl+C` when
`CONNECT NOT ACT` finally came on screen near the end
That makes this run interesting even before looking at the anomaly bytes:
- the sustained `state/value = 20 D0` traffic appears to hold the panel out of
the inactive timeout state longer than the simpler baseline sweeps
#### Serial anomaly found so far
The first repeatable anomaly in the `20 D0` sweep occurred at:
- command `0x01`
Observed family:
- `07 80 40 24 DD 64`
Example raw window:
- `00 00 00 80 DA 07 80 40 24 DD 64 07 80 40 24 DD 64 07 80 40 24 DD 64 07 80 40 24 DD 64`
Repeated later as:
- `07 80 40 24 DD 64`
repeated four times without the leading heartbeat fragment
Read:
- this is a **new `0x40`-family sibling**
- it is not the older fallback/transient:
- `07 80 40 40 30 ED`
- and it is not the `C0 40 30 6D` branch either
Best current interpretation:
- `20 D0` is not just "another payload pair"
- under a broad sustained sweep, it appears to:
- expose at least one new structured `0x40`-family page
- and also change the panel's timeout / inactive-screen behavior
This does **not** prove wake-up or active session, but it does make `20 D0`
look more session-like than the simpler `00 80` broad sweeps.
Best next follow-up from this result:
1. confirm `cmd=0x01, state/value=20 D0` directly in a short targeted test
2. compare `cmd=0x00`, `0x01`, `0x02`, `0x03` under `20 D0`
3. compare whether repeating only `00 00 01 20 D0 AB` delays `CONNECT NOT ACT`
the same way the broader sweep did
### HE34 Completion Cross-Check
For completion's sake, the three HE34 captures do **not** all carry the same
weight:
- `captures/he34-direct-alloff-00-80.txt`
- this is the **completed** baseline sweep
- it ran through the full `0x00-0xFF` command range
- it ended cleanly with:
- `FINAL heartbeat-compatible RX: 18 bytes, offset 0, 3 frames + 0 bytes`
- `Anomalies: 112`
- `captures/he34-direct-alloff-00-80-no-pwr.txt`
- this is an **interrupted partial rerun**
- it reproduced the first known baseline anomaly at `cmd=0x01`:
- `07 80 40 20 D8 65`
- but it should not be treated as the authoritative baseline map
- `captures/he34-direct-alloff-20-d0-no-pwr.txt`
- this is also an **interrupted** run
- but it is still important because it reproduced a distinct first anomaly:
- `07 80 40 24 DD 64`
- and the panel-side timeout behavior was observably different
That gives the HE34 branch a cleaner interpretation:
- `00 80` already yields a **broad structured response map**, not just a couple
of isolated hits
- so `20 D0` is interesting **not because it is the only state/value pair that
produces anomalies**
- it is interesting because:
- its first mapped `0x40`-family response differs from the baseline
- and the panel reportedly stayed out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` much longer during
the run
So the right next question is:
- not "does `20 D0` produce any anomalies at all?"
- but "does `20 D0` represent a more session-like variant of the same broad
command surface?"
### HE35: Targeted `20 D0` Follow-Up Ladder
Goal: check whether the interesting part of the `20 D0` sweep is specifically
`cmd=0x01`, whether nearby commands behave similarly, and whether repeating only
that one frame delays `CONNECT NOT ACT` by itself.
#### HE35a: direct compare `cmd=0x00-0x03` under `20 D0`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_direct_response_sweep.py --port COM5 --prefix1s 0x00 --prefix2s 0x00 --commands 0x00-0x03 --states 0x20 --values 0xD0 --settle 3.0 --after-each 1.0 --after 2.0 --pause-on-anomaly --log captures/he35-direct-20d0-cmd00-03.txt
```
What to watch:
- whether `0x01` is still the only anomaly
- whether `0x00`, `0x02`, or `0x03` produce siblings
- whether `CONNECT NOT ACT` appears during the short run
#### HE35b: repeat only `cmd=0x01 @ 20 D0`
Target frame:
- `00 00 01 20 D0 AB`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 01 20 D0 AB" --repeat 40 --interval 0.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd01-20d0.txt
```
What to watch:
- whether the panel stays out of `CONNECT NOT ACT` while this one frame repeats
- whether `07 80 40 24 DD 64` appears again
- whether the response is one-shot only or repeats periodically
#### HE35c: repeat only `cmd=0x01 @ 00 80` baseline control
Target frame:
- `00 00 01 00 80 DB`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 01 00 80 DB" --repeat 40 --interval 0.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd01-0080-control.txt
```
Purpose:
- compare the same command byte under the older baseline payload
- see whether only `20 D0` delays the timeout-like LCD behavior
#### HE35d: slower repeat of `cmd=0x01 @ 20 D0`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 01 20 D0 AB" --repeat 20 --interval 1.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd01-20d0-slow.txt
```
Purpose:
- estimate whether the panel cares about this frame's **content**, or whether it
only helps when the cadence is dense enough
#### HE35e: neighboring single-frame repeats under `20 D0`
Neighbor frames:
- `00 00 00 20 D0 AA`
- `00 00 02 20 D0 A8`
- `00 00 03 20 D0 A9`
```powershell
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 00 20 D0 AA" --repeat 20 --interval 0.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd00-20d0.txt
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 02 20 D0 A8" --repeat 20 --interval 0.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd02-20d0.txt
python scripts/serial_probe_response.py --port COM5 --tx-frame "00 00 03 20 D0 A9" --repeat 20 --interval 0.50 --delay 3 --after 3 --frame-size 0 --log captures/he35-repeat-cmd03-20d0.txt
```
Purpose:
- test whether the timeout effect belongs to the whole early `20 D0` region
- or whether `cmd=0x01` is the special case
#### Recommended order
1. `HE35a` direct `0x00-0x03` compare
2. `HE35b` repeat only `cmd=0x01 @ 20 D0`
3. `HE35c` baseline `cmd=0x01 @ 00 80` control
4. `HE35d` slow `cmd=0x01 @ 20 D0`
5. `HE35e` neighboring repeats
Interpretation guide:
- if only `cmd=0x01 @ 20 D0` delays `CONNECT NOT ACT`, that is our best
session-like micro-lead so far
- if `0x00-0x03 @ 20 D0` all help, then this may be an early-page or
low-command-region effect rather than a single magic frame
- if the same effect also appears at `cmd=0x01 @ 00 80`, then the LCD behavior
may be more about traffic density than payload meaning
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink