clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0042-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md

168 lines
6.1 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
---
id: CB-WP-0042
kind: product
title: "H2 — scoped problem stress"
status: ready
state_hub_workstream_id: "8f11d55b-3452-49f3-9857-d0bf06752f68"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
---
# Purpose
```
structural tier M (touches a canonical interface: edition loading
becomes variant-parameterised, and the kernel gains
per-Problem state)
chaos d8 = 4 → no override
declared tier M
```
**Declaration 2 of chaos window 4.**
## Why, and it is a direct answer to ours
We reported that H1-A behaves as a **solve-rate tax**: a flat +1 to every
seat while any Problem is unclaimed, so the pressure scales with the
number of Problems while the intended effect does not.
`ground-game` responded with **H2 — scoped problem stress**. Unclaimed
Problems now tick **only the seats in their scope**:
| scope | who takes the +1 |
|---|---|
| `global` | all seats |
| `personal` | the Problem's **owner** |
| `bond` | the owner's **Bond network** — owner plus every seat reachable over Bond edges only, never Rivalry; degree 0 falls back to personal |
Assigned by hidden priority: **0 (Surface) global, 1 personal, 2 personal,
3 bond, 4 personal** — which is a seat-band dial without a difficulty
card, since 2p never has the bond card in play.
**It does not stack with H1.** `replaces_experiments: [h1-problem-stress]`,
base is `ground-darvo-r0`, and there is **no ATTACK self-soothe**.
## Why this is bigger than H1 was
H1 was two arithmetic deltas on existing state. H2 needs three things we
do not have:
1. **Variant-scoped edition data.** H2 overrides `Problems.csv` with a
new `stress_scope` column. `edition.rs` `include_str!`s r0's copy at
compile time — **the data is currently a constant, not a parameter.**
2. **Per-Problem ownership**, assigned at setup. That is **new state**,
so it reaches the state hash and every recording.
3. **Bond-network reachability** — a graph traversal over Bond edges
only, with a degree-0 fallback.
## Task: variant-scoped edition data
```task
id: CB-WP-0042-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "37f9bc34-05d1-4a12-9a98-6c61ab3ec23f"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
```
**Controls:**
- **the baseline's data is bit-for-bit what it was**, and its state hashes
do not move — the control that protected CB-WP-0038 and the one that
invalidates every prior measurement if it fails;
- the H2 package is **vendored with digests** like every other borrowed
file, and `edition-check` covers it — sibling discovery walks the disk
now, so an undigested file fails (CB-REV-0003 #8);
- **`stress_scope`'s assignment is read from the file, not hardcoded.**
The delta states the priority→scope mapping; **it is the edition's to
state and ours to read**, and F25 exists because we hardcoded numbers
the edition already carried.
## Task: ownership at setup
```task
id: CB-WP-0042-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "65b9b2b8-8160-488f-8cd4-b7f734d03b22"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
```
`H2-OWN`: ascending hidden priority among in-play non-global Problems,
starting at Lead, stepping clockwise. Global Problems have no owner.
**Controls:**
- **deterministic**, and asserted so — the delta says "deterministic for
sims" and a seeded-but-unstated order would be untestable;
- **the baseline carries no owners and its hash does not move.** New
state that is `None` under baseline must serialise as it did before, or
every recorded scenario breaks;
- **exactly one owner per eligible Problem**, checked at every seat count,
because the assignment walks two sequences at once and off-by-one is
the obvious failure.
## Task: scoped pressure
```task
id: CB-WP-0042-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "8426e79c-579e-4aba-a695-381020016206"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
```
`H2-A`, at Round End, before the clamp and the DARVO arm check — the same
ordering H1-A needed, and the same trap.
**Controls:**
- **each scope fails on its own**, by mutation: global hitting only the
owner, personal hitting everyone, bond stopping at the owner;
- **`stacking: true` is tested** — two open bond Problems must tick the
network **twice**, and a careless implementation applies it once;
- **Rivalry edges are not traversed.** The delta says Bond only, and a
traversal that follows any relation is the single most likely defect;
- **degree 0 falls back to personal**, which is the branch a test forgets;
- ordering asserted as in CB-WP-0038: pressure before the arm check.
## Task: SOLVE is not restricted by scope
```task
id: CB-WP-0042-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "6606cb3b-733d-486c-9e46-37a2a2b0c2c9"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
```
`H2-SOLVE`: any seat with a matching suit may claim; the owner need not be
the solver, and altruistic clearing is **intended**.
**Control:** our engine has no owner concept today, so this is already
true — which makes it a **regression test, not a feature**. T02 adds
ownership, and the risk is that ownership silently becomes a permission.
The test must fail if it does.
## Task: measure, and report what fails
```task
id: CB-WP-0042-T05
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0bcd97da-60b8-46b2-ae86-7a94f6af8dd5"
Declare CB-WP-0041 (extensive-form foundation) and CB-WP-0042 (H2) 0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption unsound as it stands. 0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1 reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global, personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so 2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1. H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2 overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently becoming a permission to SOLVE. Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict is still owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 15:11:09 +02:00
```
Same instrument as H1, same panel, both variants in one run.
**Controls:**
- **greedy and `reactive` both**, because H1's whole verdict turned on
which policy was asked (CB-EV-0031);
- **report against ground-game's own criteria** for H2, from their design
note — **read it, do not reuse H1's §3.2 from memory**;
- **the bond-scope hypothesis is the interesting one and must be measured
directly**: their claim is that a shared tick makes a Bond network
*jointly motivated* to solve that card. Whether a policy that does not
model other seats can express that at all is an open question, and the
honest answer may be "our panel cannot test this hypothesis";
- **`make panels` runs it**, or the figures come from an ungated binary
again (CB-REV-0002 #7).
## Not in this workplan
- **No stacking with H1.** The package forbids it explicitly.
- **No felt-play.** H2's central claim is about *motivation* — a bonded
pair caring about each other's card — and 200-game aggregates measure
dynamics, not that ([`Taxonomy.md`](../specs/Taxonomy.md) §4).