coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
clay-borg/specs/FindingRegister.md

149 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 16:13:37 +02:00
# The finding register
Design findings about **GROUND**, with their reproductions. Governed by
[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
and [ADR-0012](../decisions/ADR-0012-the-design-instrument.md). Reported
by `make design`.
**Split out of `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` on 2026-08-05** when that
file crossed the ~400-line loadability limit. ADR-0012 D2 said *"no new
file"* and this is a new file — but D2's substance was **one register, not
a second mechanism competing with the first**, and that holds: this *is*
§Underdetermined's register, moved, still driving off the same
`provisional`/ruling machinery. D2 also named the awkwardness this
resolves — a finding about the engine sitting in a document about the
game.
The U-items themselves, with their defaults and rulings, stay in
[`GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`](GroundRules.md); this file tracks them
*as findings*.
**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
`make design`.
<!-- design-register:begin -->
| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U1 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U2 | underdetermined | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U3 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U4 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U5 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U6 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U7 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U8 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U9 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U10 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
| F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
CB-WP-0024: the table you can watch Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest control is a person playing it. T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said "close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect, and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null), which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser. The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned {then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal. T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question the task required settling: it already works, at games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message. T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show, because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws nothing. T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What "cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE -- the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than from play. make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 17:32:48 +02:00
| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 16:13:37 +02:00
<!-- design-register:end -->
- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
one exists.
- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
`-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
CB-WP-0024: the table you can watch Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest control is a person playing it. T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said "close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect, and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null), which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser. The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned {then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal. T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question the task required settling: it already works, at games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message. T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show, because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws nothing. T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What "cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE -- the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than from play. make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 17:32:48 +02:00
- **F15 — the rules define one game, not a series.** `OutcomeView` gives
`personal` (per seat), `group_success` (per table) and `winners`. Summing
the first and counting the third answer different questions, and GROUND
says nothing about how several games combine. CB-WP-0024 T04 shows
**both, labelled**, rather than picking one and letting it become the
score by default. `note`: no artifact demonstrates that this *harms*
play — a unit test showing the two tallies point at different seats
demonstrates only that they can differ, which is arithmetic, not a design
defect. Under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists.
CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 16:13:37 +02:00
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
recording the artifact.
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
`finished`.
CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
until it is.
### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice
**One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six
of ten did.
CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong
ones before checking them**:
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. |
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. |
Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on
reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this
exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what
the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game.
So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing.
**Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.**
They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came
off, not because anything demonstrates them.
### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
```
for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
```
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
their own.
**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
reported metric with a target of zero.
Reference in a new issue Copy permalink