CB-WP-0039: a seat that does not regulate — and it changes H1's verdict
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. That was true of the
panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout. GreedyPolicy ranks
`Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites,
Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "H1
does nothing" was really "H1 does nothing to a seat that already manages
its Stress" — and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
`reactive` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted
below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400
times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3
fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count.
The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play
IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games
was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5
and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be
reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet:
it wants the plural panel first.
A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in
every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is
[5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm,
and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the
aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from
H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's
first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such.
Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing
here reaches ground-game until it runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 01:08:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
id: CB-WP-0039
|
|
|
|
|
|
kind: product
|
|
|
|
|
|
title: "A seat that does not regulate"
|
|
|
|
|
|
status: done
|
2026-08-08 01:09:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
state_hub_workstream_id: "8387cea3-fcaa-4d34-89f4-527074db1514"
|
CB-WP-0039: a seat that does not regulate — and it changes H1's verdict
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. That was true of the
panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout. GreedyPolicy ranks
`Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites,
Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "H1
does nothing" was really "H1 does nothing to a seat that already manages
its Stress" — and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
`reactive` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted
below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400
times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3
fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count.
The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play
IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games
was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5
and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be
reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet:
it wants the plural panel first.
A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in
every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is
[5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm,
and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the
aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from
H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's
first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such.
Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing
here reaches ground-game until it runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 01:08:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Purpose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
structural tier M (adds a policy to the panel every future difficulty
|
|
|
|
|
|
and design measurement is reported against)
|
|
|
|
|
|
chaos d8 = 2 → no override
|
|
|
|
|
|
declared tier M
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Declaration 11 of chaos window 3.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Why
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[CB-EV-0030](../evidence/CB-EV-0030-h1-measured.md) §4 named this as the
|
|
|
|
|
|
measurement it had not run, and it is the one that decides whether H1's
|
|
|
|
|
|
verdict is about **H1** or about **greedy**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H1 assumes rising Stress pushes a table toward the DARVO arm. It does not,
|
|
|
|
|
|
**because greedy regulates**: `Action::Ground if gated => 100` makes
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROUND the top choice the moment the stress gate bites, so Stress
|
|
|
|
|
|
plateaus at 3 and neither the gate (4) nor the arm (5) is ever reached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> **Every policy in that panel was greedy-family.** So "H1 does nothing"
|
|
|
|
|
|
> may be "H1 does nothing *to a seat that already manages its Stress*" —
|
|
|
|
|
|
> and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The one preference that varies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`Reactive` is `GreedyPolicy` with **GROUND demoted below ATTACK**, and
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing else changed. It is the player who chases Problems and ignores
|
|
|
|
|
|
their own state — which is not a straw man: it is the commonest way a
|
|
|
|
|
|
person plays a co-operative game badly, and the behaviour GROUND's whole
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stress economy exists to punish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**One preference, per ADR-0018 and the same discipline as
|
|
|
|
|
|
`attack-value.rs`'s `Attacker`.** A policy that differed in several places
|
|
|
|
|
|
would tell us a variant is different without saying which difference did
|
|
|
|
|
|
the work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Task: the policy, and the measurement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```task
|
|
|
|
|
|
id: CB-WP-0039-T01
|
|
|
|
|
|
status: done
|
|
|
|
|
|
priority: high
|
2026-08-08 01:09:33 +02:00
|
|
|
|
state_hub_task_id: "2c509cdb-aedb-4dce-a21f-f16bcdf17d80"
|
CB-WP-0039: a seat that does not regulate — and it changes H1's verdict
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. That was true of the
panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout. GreedyPolicy ranks
`Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites,
Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "H1
does nothing" was really "H1 does nothing to a seat that already manages
its Stress" — and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
`reactive` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted
below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400
times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3
fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count.
The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play
IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games
was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5
and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be
reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet:
it wants the plural panel first.
A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in
every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is
[5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm,
and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the
aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from
H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's
first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such.
Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing
here reaches ground-game until it runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 01:08:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Controls:**
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **exactly one preference differs from greedy**, and the artifact says
|
|
|
|
|
|
which;
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **both variants, same instrument, same run** — otherwise the comparison
|
|
|
|
|
|
is between harnesses;
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **the game count is reported**, because CB-EV-0030 §3's harness defect
|
|
|
|
|
|
was silently discarding games and printing zeros that read as losses;
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **the answer may be that H1 still fails**, and that is reported as
|
|
|
|
|
|
plainly as the other outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**Done 2026-08-08, then CORRECTED after adversarial review**
|
|
|
|
|
|
([CB-REV-0001](../reviews/CB-REV-0001-h1.md)).
|
CB-WP-0039: a seat that does not regulate — and it changes H1's verdict
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. That was true of the
panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout. GreedyPolicy ranks
`Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites,
Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "H1
does nothing" was really "H1 does nothing to a seat that already manages
its Stress" — and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
`reactive` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted
below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400
times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3
fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count.
The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play
IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games
was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5
and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be
reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet:
it wants the plural panel first.
A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in
every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is
[5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm,
and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the
aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from
H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's
first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such.
Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing
here reaches ground-game until it runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 01:08:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
[CB-EV-0031](../evidence/CB-EV-0031-a-seat-that-does-not-regulate.md).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
|
|
|
|
> **This task's own control — "exactly one preference differs from
|
|
|
|
|
|
> greedy" — was false when it was marked done.** The policy differed in
|
|
|
|
|
|
> five places, including `SpendFreedom`, which made the seat burn its
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Freedom token in round one of every game: a second change to the exact
|
|
|
|
|
|
> mechanism under study. **Every number below was measuring that.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
> `GreedyPolicy::rank` is now public and the policy delegates to it,
|
|
|
|
|
|
> overriding one match arm — so the control is structurally true rather
|
|
|
|
|
|
> than asserted in a comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**It changed CB-EV-0030's verdict**, and that part survives: H1 does reach
|
|
|
|
|
|
the unregulated seat. DARVO arms **2 per seat per game**, scaling with the
|
|
|
|
|
|
table — the earlier flat "400 in every cell" was the broken policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Criterion 3's verdict is corrected and was wrong**: reactive wins
|
|
|
|
|
|
**66 at 2p against greedy's 68**, not "nothing at any seat count". It wins
|
|
|
|
|
|
nothing at 3p and above, and so does greedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The baseline observation survives only in a narrower form.** Peak Stress
|
|
|
|
|
|
*held* across the **1,600** baseline games was **2** — the starting value,
|
|
|
|
|
|
never exceeded. The original said **1** because the metric maximised over
|
|
|
|
|
|
`StressSet` event payloads and the starting value is written by `setup`,
|
|
|
|
|
|
never by an event: **wrong subject**, in the pass that was written to
|
|
|
|
|
|
correct a wrong-subject error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the generalisation was refuted by this repo's own harness: the rank-95
|
|
|
|
|
|
policy *is* a reckless policy and it drives Stress to 5 under **baseline**.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What survives: under the two policies here, neither of which selects ATTACK
|
|
|
|
|
|
under baseline, **no Stress is ever added** — ATTACK is the sole inbound
|
|
|
|
|
|
pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The H1-B suppression claim is WITHDRAWN.** It was inferred from a
|
|
|
|
|
|
constant that the broken policy produced, and disabling H1-B under the
|
|
|
|
|
|
corrected policy changes the arm count by **exactly zero** in every cell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The inference was also invalid on its own terms: final Stress does not
|
|
|
|
|
|
record who armed, because `DarvoEnded` resets the stage and REVERSE gives
|
|
|
|
|
|
its owner −2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The pass hedged the wrong variable** — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
|
|
|
|
|
|
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed.
|