reasoning: Probe whether ACTION1 moves the controllable 8-shaped sprite upward from the lower junction.

rejected: ACTION5 — likely submit or mode-toggle, premature before directional semantics are known


reasoning: Probe the second directional input after ACTION1 was blocked; test whether the active 8 region moves down along the vertical corridor.

expected: ACTION1 would visibly shift the active sprite upward


reasoning: Continue downward from the first landing to test the six-cell grid movement and seek the lower corridor.


reasoning: At the broad row-20 corridor, test ACTION4 as rightward movement toward the alternate vertical lane.

rejected: ACTION2 — the direct lower route is open, but the cross-corridor is the earliest safe place to identify horizontal semantics


reasoning: Probe ACTION3 as leftward movement from the open cross-corridor and begin returning to the long lower route.

rejected: ACTION4 — further right leads toward an upper branch rather than the visible lower-right goal structure


reasoning: Descend from the cross-corridor into the long left vertical lane toward the lower goal.


reasoning: Continue down the unobstructed left lane, stopping one tile before the static 8 junction.


reasoning: Test whether the movable 9 glyph can enter the static 8-marked junction directly from above.

rejected: ACTION5 — first determine whether the 8 junction itself blocks ordinary movement


reasoning: Adjacent to the blocking 8 junction, test ACTION5 as interaction or mode-toggle that may permit crossing or alter the glyph.

rejected: ACTION2 — direct entry was just empirically blocked


reasoning: Advance right along the upper corridor toward the alternate 8 endpoint, testing whether this branch provides access around the seal.


reasoning: At the upper approach, test direct entry into the 8 trail's upper endpoint to distinguish endpoint behavior from the lower seal.

rejected: ACTION5 — reserve the remaining commit until ordinary endpoint interaction is resolved


reasoning: After entering the upper 8 endpoint shifted the barrier, follow its vertical line downward to test whether the glyph can consume or push the trail segment-by-segment.

expected: The upper endpoint would block just like the lower endpoint


reasoning: Backtrack left across the upper corridor after retracting the 8 endpoint, aiming to approach the newly exposed 2 glyph from above.


reasoning: Descend one tile while tracking whether the 2 glyph and 8 trail change independently of contact, testing the moving-hazard hypothesis.

expected: The 8 barrier would remain shifted after leaving its upper endpoint


reasoning: Continue down toward the 2 glyph, monitoring its timing and preparing to test whether it is a moving obstacle or pushable cargo.


reasoning: Move into the open tile immediately above the stationary 2 glyph, setting up a direct collision probe.


reasoning: Test direct downward contact with the 2 glyph while the 8 endpoint blocks the tile behind it, distinguishing pushable cargo from an obstacle.

rejected: ACTION5 — waiting is less diagnostic than a direct collision while both objects are aligned


reasoning: After absorbing the 2 glyph, retest the lower 8 endpoint to see whether collection changes access or whether the endpoint timing is the remaining gate.

expected: The 2 glyph would block or be pushed rather than disappear on contact


reasoning: Commit the failed second trajectory to obtain the terminal evaluation, enabling a protocol-valid RESET before executing the synchronized solution.

rejected: Continue moving — the committed first actor ends at the lower gate and cannot hold the upper endpoint, so this two-actor program cannot satisfy C12


reasoning: Program the first actor to traverse the upper corridor and finish on the 8 gate's upper endpoint, where its replay will hold the lower passage open.


reasoning: Commit the first actor while it occupies the upper endpoint so its four-step replay becomes the persistent gate holder for the live actor.

rejected: Move away — that would restore the barrier and record a non-holding final position


reasoning: Bootstrap the live actor after commit and begin the synchronized descent while the replay starts its upper-corridor route.


reasoning: Continue the synchronized descent so the live actor reaches the lower gate as the committed actor advances toward the upper endpoint.


reasoning: Cross the lower-left passage now that the committed 2 actor is visibly holding the upper endpoint and the 8 gate is retracted.

rejected: Wait or move sideways — the synchronization condition is currently satisfied and should be exploited immediately


reasoning: Continue down the now-accessible left lane toward the bottom horizontal corridor while the replay actor holds the gate.


reasoning: Traverse right along the bottom corridor toward the fixed lower-right 9 goal structure after clearing the synchronized gate.


reasoning: Enter the lower-right 9 goal structure from the adjacent bottom-corridor tile to test the final positional completion condition.

rejected: ACTION5 — first place the live actor directly into the visible goal