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 |
|
GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end — F14 closed, and the reason they were
unplayed was ours
Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from
CB-WP-0029's roll, no override).
cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an
empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver,
so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach
the thing it was about.
--mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM
IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone
(top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2).
Same 37 commands, three answers.
AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn
its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode:
SHARED GROUND 132/165/190/200 -> identical free but pointless
COMMON PROBLEM 59/52/48/44 -> 59/52/48/34 a cost at six seats
BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34 roughly halved
The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted.
GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond
NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking
numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that
predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04
degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out.
F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK
has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your
score.
Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the
game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic
being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:38:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F14 | unplayed | applied | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 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-0025 T06/T07: a difficulty baseline that reports its own confound
T06. games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs, make difficulty, wired into make
self-tests, and a report file in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0005 with a
hub message pointing at it.
THE REPORT OPENS WITH THE RETRACTION, because what this task was written
to send was withdrawn by T02 and GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly that
number. They are told, in the first section, that we nearly sent them "the
game is too easy at 5-6 seats" and why it was wrong.
seats winnable greedy random first-legal spread
2p 60% 60.0% 5.0% 76.7% 71.7
3p 93% 88.3% 6.7% 25.0% 81.7
4p 100% 93.3% 6.7% 30.0% 86.7
5p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0
6p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0
SPREAD justifies the whole redesign: 71.7 to 100.0 points between three
trivial policies. The table now shows why no single rate is a difficulty
rather than asserting it.
And the 5-6 rows point the OPPOSITE way from the withdrawn claim --
first-legal 0% against greedy 100% is the widest spread in the table,
which suggests play matters MORE there, not less. Neither reading is
established and the report says so.
The confound is stated in the tool's own output, not only in prose:
`winnable` is conditioned on greedy's play up to the final round, because
searching from round 1 is unaffordable. Presenting it as a property of the
deal would repeat this pass's error in a subtler form -- which is exactly
how a corrected project reintroduces a defect. NO THRESHOLD CHANGES ARE
PROPOSED.
The instrument can fail (spec §5): a witness must replay to a win, an
unwinnable position must report searched-out rather than a budget cut, a
one-node budget must not claim exhaustion, and the policy panel must
actually disagree. difficulty-baseline.rs marked superseded, kept as the
survey's dated snapshot. Registered as F16, inconsistent / withdrawn.
T07. evidence/CB-EV-0024. Five of nine defects came only from the review;
four from execution, and all four of those were in work written after it.
The wrong-denominator family now has five instances and still no control
-- facts-check catches copies that disagree, nothing catches a number
computed correctly against the wrong base. Tier L was an over-declaration
(no port, structurally M) and paid for itself anyway, because the review
is L-only. Chaos window 2 will close with zero overrides, making its
retirement condition untestable.
Named as open rather than implied done: the witness is NOT wired to the
ending page. The search works; the browser cannot ask it yet.
make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-05 19:24:49 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
|
25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it
says
Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.
But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.
So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.
rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO
rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218
rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000
THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.
The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.
Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.
F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:08:47 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F17 | degenerate | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
|
CB-WP-0037 T01: F18 gets a reproduction, and F24 falls out of it
F18 was the only open finding clay-borg owns, the only register row
lacking a reproduction, and the only off-target metric. It is also
understated: it reads as display data, but among the 14 unvendored files
are DARVO.csv (mandatory_effect, advance), Relations.csv (formation,
breaking) and Scenarios.csv — rules the engine already implements from a
secondary source and has never checked against the primary one.
The reproduction records column reads AT THE ACCESSOR rather than counting
them from the source: a list beside the code would be a second copy of a
fact the get calls already carry, and grepping would over-count because
six column names are shared between vendored files.
The first version was wrong in this repo's signature way — it watched
Table::at only, so it called visibility, required_solution and point_value
unread when the engine reads all three through problems_of's own index
lookups. Correct about the accessor, wrong about the engine: the ADR-0018
family, committed inside the artifact built to measure it. Problems.csv
went 7/13 to 10/13 once the manual reader was recorded too.
F24 raised: solution_deck() is a Rust literal that never opens
Solutions.csv. It agrees today, which is the point — the engine is right
by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading. Role `default`, with a
test that goes red the moment either side moves.
open, lacking a reproduction: 1 -> 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 23:11:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F18 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_reads_only_part_of_what_it_vendored` | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
CB-WP-0037 T02: the engine's rules against the edition's
Vendored DARVO.csv, Relations.csv and Scenarios.csv — the three unread
files that carry mechanism. The engine has implemented the DARVO sequence
and relation formation/breaking from GroundRules.md since the beginning,
and had never read the game owner's statement of them.
Every checkable clause agrees, and agreement is recorded rather than
noted: a survey that finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from
one never run. The two hardest clauses to notice were already right —
Focus placed "even if the Attack was cancelled", and Focus removed when
the sequence ends before REVERSE.
The tests are tripwires, not derivations. The match was made by a person
reading prose, and that reading goes stale in silence when the prose
changes; each behaviour pins the phrase it was read from, so a reworded
edition goes red and asks for a human. Mutation-proven by rewording the
cancelled-Attack clause.
F25 raised, and it is the real yield: Scenarios.csv carries
threshold_2_players/3_4/5_6, starting_stress and round_track, and the
engine hardcodes all three — a match returning 5/7/9, stress: 2 at setup,
five rounds. They agree on all four scenarios. These are the most
contested numbers in the project; the whole 4/6/9 vs 5/7/9 episode turned
on them, and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather
than by reading the file that owns them.
Also pinned: Problems.csv and Scenarios.csv both state the deal and the
engine reads only the first. They agree; nothing was checking.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 00:21:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F25 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_agrees_with_the_editions_own_numbers` | default | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
|
CB-WP-0037 T01: F18 gets a reproduction, and F24 falls out of it
F18 was the only open finding clay-borg owns, the only register row
lacking a reproduction, and the only off-target metric. It is also
understated: it reads as display data, but among the 14 unvendored files
are DARVO.csv (mandatory_effect, advance), Relations.csv (formation,
breaking) and Scenarios.csv — rules the engine already implements from a
secondary source and has never checked against the primary one.
The reproduction records column reads AT THE ACCESSOR rather than counting
them from the source: a list beside the code would be a second copy of a
fact the get calls already carry, and grepping would over-count because
six column names are shared between vendored files.
The first version was wrong in this repo's signature way — it watched
Table::at only, so it called visibility, required_solution and point_value
unread when the engine reads all three through problems_of's own index
lookups. Correct about the accessor, wrong about the engine: the ADR-0018
family, committed inside the artifact built to measure it. Problems.csv
went 7/13 to 10/13 once the manual reader was recorded too.
F24 raised: solution_deck() is a Rust literal that never opens
Solutions.csv. It agrees today, which is the point — the engine is right
by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading. Role `default`, with a
test that goes red the moment either side moves.
open, lacking a reproduction: 1 -> 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 23:11:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F24 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_hardcoded_deck_still_matches_the_edition` | default | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
2026-08-06 21:51:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F19 | degenerate | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::overhead_table | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
fix: a click target wearing a drag affordance made the controls look dead
Tier S (a fix inside a boundary; chaos d8=7 from the previous roll stands
for this continuation). Two observations from play that are ONE defect.
`play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move buttons carried `.pick`,
which is cursor:grab. The stylesheet has .btn{cursor:pointer} BEFORE
.pick{cursor:grab}, so grab won.
A GRAB CURSOR INVITES A DRAG. A drag released over nothing posts nothing,
so the player picked up the button, let go, and the page did nothing. It
looked dead because the affordance told them to do the one thing that does
not work. Reported as two separate things -- "the button shows a hand to
pick up that it probably shouldn't" and "I can't start another game or
stop the server" -- and the first causes the second.
The click path itself was never broken: driving again->again and
done->done through the JS harness posts correctly. The logic was fine and
the invitation was wrong.
Click targets now carry `.tap` -- pointer cursor, same press affordance.
This extends CB-WP-0017's rule (interactive and inert must not look
identical) to: click and drag must not look identical either. The test
asserts both directions, because checking only that buttons lost `.pick`
would pass for a page with no affordances at all.
Registered F20 (applied) and F21.
F21 IS THE ONE I COULD NOT REPRODUCE: dragging did not work until after
the first note was saved. Ruled out the plausible mechanisms -- the
gesture logic posts correctly against the served page, the drag ghost
carries pointer-events:none so it cannot intercept the drop, and the
markup is identical before and after since the 303 re-renders the same
page from the same state. Remaining candidates are a <details> toggle
shifting layout mid-drag, a first-load timing difference, or browser-level
pointer capture. Reproducing it needs a browser, which no test here has --
the same gap F19 named. Recorded as unreproduced rather than given a
speculative fix.
And the fourth observation is confirmation, not a bug: "drawing my cards
from the deck is not implemented, I did not need to do that" is exactly
what CB-WP-0028 T04 determined and deliberately did not build. It is the
first evidence that importing the card text closed the comprehension gap
that produced the earlier click-the-deck request.
make all: exit 0. 62 render tests, 26 cb-play.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 22:25:06 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F20 | inert | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::ending_page | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
ADR-0017: window 2's verdict — the mechanism worked, my account of it did
not
Tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation), declared at
d8 because the rate for window 3 is what this document decides and
declaring at a rate it invents would be circular. chaos d8 = 7, no
override.
I CLAIMED WINDOW 2 PRODUCED ZERO OVERRIDES, FIVE TIMES, AND IT IS FALSE.
Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, overrode, drew S against a
structural S, and changed nothing -- and CB-WP-0020 recorded it correctly
at the time, in those words: "the first override at d8... It changed
nothing... One."
Counting the workplans takes one command and I never ran it. CB-EV-0024
asserted "zero" without checking; CB-EV-0025, 0026, 0027 and CB-WP-0029
each cited the one before. A claim propagated five times by citation
rather than by measurement, in files whose subject was that exact failure.
facts-check catches a copied number that disagrees with its source;
nothing catches a number with NO source, asserted once and repeated.
Registered F23, and all four evidence files carry an in-place correction
rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5).
THE ACTUAL VERDICT: THE RATE IS WORKING. Eleven rolls at d8 -- declaration
1 opened the window at the old d4 -- against 1.375 eights expected, 1
observed. Not a shortage of evidence; the design.
BUT THE RETIREMENT CONDITION GENUINELY CANNOT FIRE, and that took
computing to see. "An override changes nothing twice running" needs a
consecutive pair at P=1/3 each, so ~12 overrides expected, at ~1.4 per
window: ~9 windows, roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out
on any realistic horizon is decoration, which ADR-0006 D3 forbids.
Restated to be evaluated PER WINDOW: retire if a full window's overrides
all change nothing, met in two consecutive windows. A window with no
overrides is inconclusive and advances nothing. ~24 declarations rather
than ~100. Window 2 counts as the first; window 3 opens at d8 and decides.
Recorded and deliberately not acted on: declarations 5-9 rolled six five
times running, ~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven rolls. shuf tested
over 200 rapid successive calls looks uniform, longest run three. Found
post hoc, which is how coincidences become findings, so it is logged for a
future window to check rather than treated as evidence.
InnerLoop.md then crossed the loadability limit, and so did
InnerLoopReference.md. The window log moved to specs/ChaosRollHistory.md:
it grows by one entry per window, and a log inside a reference eventually
crowds out the reference.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:55:54 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F23 | inconsistent | applied | decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
CB-WP-0029 T01-T03: components you can count, and a supply that does not bind
ADR-0016, Tokens.csv vendored, tracks and discs on the table, and a supply
audit that found nothing and says so.
T03 MEASURED BEFORE T01 DECIDED. 750 games, 2-6 seats, greedy and random:
Protection reaches 1 per seat and 2 on the table against a supply of 6;
Denied 3 of 5; relation links EXACTLY 12 OF 12 and never more; Focus/Blame
0 conflicts. The link row is the interesting one -- GR-L01's two-slot rule
IS the twelve-token supply written twice, which is the shape of a supply
needing no separate enforcement.
AND THE FIRST VERSION OF THE FOCUS/BLAME CHECK WAS WRONG. It compared a
seat's own placed Focus against its OWN blame_from -- but that list holds
OTHER players' discs, so they are different tokens. It reported 2
conflicts; corrected, it reports 0. Fifth instance of this project's
recurring defect, a number computed correctly about the wrong subject, and
the first caught before it left the repo rather than by a reviewer.
D2: a token is a VIEW, not a type. The aggregate gains no `Token` --
adding one would create a second source of truth for Stress, and the first
time they disagreed the bug would be invisible because both would look
internally consistent.
D3: quantity does NOT bind, and the reason is not the measurement. A
component limit the rules do not state is not a rule. Refusing a seventh
Protection token would enforce something nobody ruled -- CB-WP-0023's
error inverted: SOLVE was OFFERED where it could not act; this would
REFUSE where the rules allow. The check ships as a standing control, so a
future violation becomes a question for ground-game (does the box bound
the game, or do the rules?) rather than a bound the engine invented.
Registered as F22, withdrawn: a stated negative, because a survey that
finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one never run.
D4: Stress on a 0-5 track that turns red at 5 where DARVO arms, DARVO on
OFF/DENY/ATTACK/REVERSE, Freedom as the two-sided disc the edition says it
is, Protection and Blame counted, Lead and Round on the table.
Two tests broke on token discs and both were FIXTURE defects:
seat_centres matched every <circle> and track stops are circles. Seats now
carry class="seat".
The table height limit went 460 -> 500 as a CORRECTION, not a concession.
460 had no derivation; 500 does -- ~800px viewport less ~120 header and
~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging was 620.
CB-WP-0021 T06's rule is to fix the measurement rather than lower the
floor, and an underived number is a measurement defect.
make all: exit 0. 66 render tests, 26 cb-play.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 09:54:20 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-09 00:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F26 | inert | ruled | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
CB-WP-0049 T02/T03: a seat that plays its objective, and F27 splits in two
objective() reads GroundState::score (now public) rather than restating
what winning is; a copy in the bot would disagree with the kernel the
first time ground-game rules on F28.
Working out WHERE the modes can differ was most of the task and it
bounds the result: SOLVE always claims for the actor, so own-score and
group-score want the same SOLVE nearly everywhere. That is a fact about
GROUND's action set, not a shortcoming of the bot. Two real divergences,
both readable off the table: SUPPORT regulates someone else (worth less
against a rival, worth MORE under coalitions where a Bond merges them
into my side), and SOLVE's value is the card's value, which greedy
ignores entirely.
THE RESULT — F27 splits in two:
group success UNCHANGED in 34 of 36 cells
who wins MOVES: BONDED COALITIONS at 4p goes 2.04 -> 2.98,
2.12 -> 3.29, 2.05 -> 3.01 winning seats per game
So "the competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play" was
too strong and is withdrawn. The sharper claim: GROUND's scoring modes
change WHO WINS, not WHETHER THE GROUP SUCCEEDS. And the effect is
seat-band dependent -- 2p none, 4p largest, 6p none under coalitions;
two relation slots capping network growth is a candidate explanation and
is untested.
The panel now prints BOTH policies side by side. That was a correction
mid-task: the first version printed only the new one and I compared it
against a figure remembered from CB-WP-0047 -- a comparison against a
board nobody re-ran.
Control that makes the numbers mean anything: under SHARED GROUND the
two policies agree at all but <=2 decision points across 12 boards, so a
moving column is mode-awareness and not simply a different bot.
Also: two T01 tests keyed on `status: proposed`, which ground-game
renamed to `ready-for-implement` mid-session. They now find the module
by asking resolve() -- the structural property is ours and does not move
when another repo edits its vocabulary.
Also: `make vendor` replaces three hand re-vendors with a tool that
regenerates digests by walking editions/, and reports one-sided files
rather than resolving them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 23:31:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F27 | unplayed | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
|
Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-09 00:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
| F29 | inconsistent | applied | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F30 | degenerate | ruled | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F28 | underdetermined | applied | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
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 -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-EV-0033 + GROUND-RPT-0006: report the boards and modes to ground-game
Five things worth their time, four of them asks rather than statements:
F29 SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the SAME BOARD -- identical suit and value at
every priority, every cell matching exactly. Not called a defect (a
reskin is legitimate) but "four scenarios" is three boards. Asked
whether it is intended.
F30 SCN_04 is materially harder at 2p: 52/100 against 67 and 73, with
every other parameter held by the edition itself -- same deal shape,
same 6 available points, same threshold, same starting Stress. The lone
difference is that it is the only 2p deal needing two of one suit.
Causation explicitly NOT claimed; the falsifier is stated. Sensitivity:
at 4p SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is not the hard board there.
The modes finding, corrected in their favour: we previously reported the
three modes produced identical play. That was OUR INSTRUMENT, not their
game -- the bot never read the Mode card. With a mode-aware bot, group
success is unchanged in 34 of 36 cells but coalition size moves by half
again at 4p. So the modes decide the distribution of the win and the
threshold decides survival independently of it.
F28 (mastery counts cards where the shared score counts points) and F26
(a package that adds a FILE is invisible to a consumer) promoted to
reported -- both need their ruling, neither changed on our side.
F17 and F26 move raised -> reported now that they are in a delivered
report.
The register crossed the ~400-line loadability limit, so prose for
CLOSED findings moved to FindingRegister-closed.md. The rows are
untouched and `make design` still reads one file -- ADR-0012 D5's
reasoning about mixing open and closed applies to files too.
Report left UNCOMMITTED in ground-game: their tree has live uncommitted
work from their own agent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 23:43:43 +02:00
|
|
|
|
Prose for **closed** findings (withdrawn or applied) lives in
|
|
|
|
|
|
[`FindingRegister-closed.md`](FindingRegister-closed.md); the rows above
|
|
|
|
|
|
are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **F30 — SCN_04 is materially harder at 2 players.** 52/100 group
|
|
|
|
|
|
success against 67 and 73, with **every other parameter held by the
|
|
|
|
|
|
edition itself**: same deal shape, same 6 available points, same
|
|
|
|
|
|
threshold 5, same starting Stress. The lone difference is that SCN_04
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the only 2p deal needing **two of one suit** (Repair, Clarify,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repair).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Causation is not established** and the finding does not claim it. The
|
|
|
|
|
|
falsifier is a deck with a doubled suit that does not lose group
|
|
|
|
|
|
success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the gap closes — at 4p
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is *not* the hard board there. The
|
|
|
|
|
|
effect is specific to the 2p deal, which is the band where the deck has
|
|
|
|
|
|
fewest cards to route around a suit it cannot match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-09 00:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**RULED 2026-08-08:** acceptable variety for now; SCN_04 stands as a
|
|
|
|
|
|
harder board and is monitored. If table feel proves too swingy the
|
|
|
|
|
|
first lever is priority-2's suit (dropping the double Repair), **not**
|
|
|
|
|
|
the global thresholds — which also confirms our reading that the suit
|
|
|
|
|
|
multiset is the operative difference, without our having measured it.
|
CB-WP-0047: all four boards, and every mode named on the page
The modes were already implemented; nothing had ever COMPARED them. The
scenarios were not implemented at all: edition::deal has taken a
scenario_id since it was written and the only caller passed the literal
"SCN_01", so 15 of 20 Problem cards had never been dealt by anything.
The seam was the whole mechanism and it sat unused, with nothing red
because nothing asked.
Scenario is now state (serde default SCN_01, so all 26 recordings replay
unchanged), selected by preset `scn-03-4p` with `standard-Np` still
meaning SCN_01, and by --scenario/SCENARIO= accepting ids, numbers or
titles, validated against the edition rather than a pattern.
The threshold now comes off the Scenario card, closing F25's hardcoded
5/7/9. The first version of that control was worthless and mutation said
so: all four scenarios print 5/7/9, so reverting to the bands left it
green. Split threshold_from() so it can be handed a card that disagrees.
The header read `scoring CommonProblem` where the Mode card is titled
COMMON PROBLEM, PERSONAL EDGE -- the defect CB-WP-0034 deleted from the
move buttons, still standing on the line that says what winning means.
The coverage probe was matching that Debug output and went red when it
was fixed: third instance (CB-WP-0024, CB-WP-0034). Page now carries the
premise, the mode's rules text, and the tiebreak.
scenario-panel plays 4x3x3. Findings: SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same
board (identical cells, pinned by a characterisation test); SCN_04 is
the hard board at 2p (52% vs 67/73%, the only deck needing two Repair);
and group success is EXACTLY equal across all three modes in all 36
cells, because greedy never reads state.mode -- filed F27, the two
competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play.
F28: SHARED GROUND's mastery subtracts penalties from the claimed COUNT
where the mode card's shared score is claimed VALUE. Raised, not fixed;
scoring is ground-game's to rule on.
Also fixes design.py reporting a backticked path as no reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 20:51:46 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F27 — the two competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative
|
|
|
|
|
|
play.** `scenario-panel` finds group success *exactly* equal across
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHARED GROUND, COMMON PROBLEM and BONDED COALITIONS in all 36 cells.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Correct arithmetic: `GreedyPolicy` maximises the group outcome and
|
|
|
|
|
|
never reads `state.mode`, so the same games are played and only the
|
|
|
|
|
|
winner set is carved differently. **Whether a mode changes how GROUND
|
|
|
|
|
|
is played is therefore untested**, and cannot be tested by any panel
|
|
|
|
|
|
built from the current policies — it needs one that plays for personal
|
|
|
|
|
|
score. `unplayed` rather than `inert`: the modes score correctly, they
|
|
|
|
|
|
have simply never faced a seat that wanted to win alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0049 T02/T03: a seat that plays its objective, and F27 splits in two
objective() reads GroundState::score (now public) rather than restating
what winning is; a copy in the bot would disagree with the kernel the
first time ground-game rules on F28.
Working out WHERE the modes can differ was most of the task and it
bounds the result: SOLVE always claims for the actor, so own-score and
group-score want the same SOLVE nearly everywhere. That is a fact about
GROUND's action set, not a shortcoming of the bot. Two real divergences,
both readable off the table: SUPPORT regulates someone else (worth less
against a rival, worth MORE under coalitions where a Bond merges them
into my side), and SOLVE's value is the card's value, which greedy
ignores entirely.
THE RESULT — F27 splits in two:
group success UNCHANGED in 34 of 36 cells
who wins MOVES: BONDED COALITIONS at 4p goes 2.04 -> 2.98,
2.12 -> 3.29, 2.05 -> 3.01 winning seats per game
So "the competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play" was
too strong and is withdrawn. The sharper claim: GROUND's scoring modes
change WHO WINS, not WHETHER THE GROUP SUCCEEDS. And the effect is
seat-band dependent -- 2p none, 4p largest, 6p none under coalitions;
two relation slots capping network growth is a candidate explanation and
is untested.
The panel now prints BOTH policies side by side. That was a correction
mid-task: the first version printed only the new one and I compared it
against a figure remembered from CB-WP-0047 -- a comparison against a
board nobody re-ran.
Control that makes the numbers mean anything: under SHARED GROUND the
two policies agree at all but <=2 decision points across 12 boards, so a
moving column is mode-awareness and not simply a different bot.
Also: two T01 tests keyed on `status: proposed`, which ground-game
renamed to `ready-for-implement` mid-session. They now find the module
by asking resolve() -- the structural property is ours and does not move
when another repo edits its vocabulary.
Also: `make vendor` replaces three hand re-vendors with a tool that
regenerates digests by walking editions/, and reports one-sided files
rather than resolving them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 23:31:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**Re-measured 2026-08-08 with `ObjectivePolicy`** (CB-WP-0049 T03),
|
|
|
|
|
|
which plays its seat's own objective. The finding **splits in two**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Group success does not move.** 34 of 36 cells identical; SCN_03 at
|
|
|
|
|
|
4p goes 99→100 in all three modes, which is the SOLVE-by-value
|
|
|
|
|
|
refinement and not a mode effect. **Whether the table survives is the
|
|
|
|
|
|
same game in all three modes.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Who wins does move.** Under BONDED COALITIONS at 4p, winning seats
|
|
|
|
|
|
per game go 2.04 → 2.98 (SCN_01/02), 2.12 → 3.29 (SCN_03), 2.05 →
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.01 (SCN_04): a seat whose score is its coalition's sum bonds more,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the coalitions get about half again as large. COMMON PROBLEM
|
|
|
|
|
|
moves at 6p (1.10 → 1.17).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the modes **do** reach decisions — the original claim that they are
|
|
|
|
|
|
"scoring lenses over cooperative play" was too strong, and is withdrawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
in favour of the sharper one: **GROUND's scoring modes change who wins,
|
|
|
|
|
|
not whether the group succeeds.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the effect appears and
|
|
|
|
|
|
disappears — 2p shows no divergence in any mode, 4p shows the largest,
|
|
|
|
|
|
6p shows none under BONDED COALITIONS. A candidate explanation is that
|
|
|
|
|
|
two relation slots per seat cap network growth, so at 6p the incentive
|
|
|
|
|
|
exists and cannot be acted on; **that is untested** and is the next
|
|
|
|
|
|
thing to vary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Still open**, because the part that motivated it is untested: no
|
|
|
|
|
|
policy models a *rival* playing their objective, so a competitive mode
|
|
|
|
|
|
in which nobody anticipates an opponent remains a weak test of that
|
|
|
|
|
|
mode (CB-WP-0049 "Not done here").
|
CB-WP-0047: all four boards, and every mode named on the page
The modes were already implemented; nothing had ever COMPARED them. The
scenarios were not implemented at all: edition::deal has taken a
scenario_id since it was written and the only caller passed the literal
"SCN_01", so 15 of 20 Problem cards had never been dealt by anything.
The seam was the whole mechanism and it sat unused, with nothing red
because nothing asked.
Scenario is now state (serde default SCN_01, so all 26 recordings replay
unchanged), selected by preset `scn-03-4p` with `standard-Np` still
meaning SCN_01, and by --scenario/SCENARIO= accepting ids, numbers or
titles, validated against the edition rather than a pattern.
The threshold now comes off the Scenario card, closing F25's hardcoded
5/7/9. The first version of that control was worthless and mutation said
so: all four scenarios print 5/7/9, so reverting to the bands left it
green. Split threshold_from() so it can be handed a card that disagrees.
The header read `scoring CommonProblem` where the Mode card is titled
COMMON PROBLEM, PERSONAL EDGE -- the defect CB-WP-0034 deleted from the
move buttons, still standing on the line that says what winning means.
The coverage probe was matching that Debug output and went red when it
was fixed: third instance (CB-WP-0024, CB-WP-0034). Page now carries the
premise, the mode's rules text, and the tiebreak.
scenario-panel plays 4x3x3. Findings: SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same
board (identical cells, pinned by a characterisation test); SCN_04 is
the hard board at 2p (52% vs 67/73%, the only deck needing two Repair);
and group success is EXACTLY equal across all three modes in all 36
cells, because greedy never reads state.mode -- filed F27, the two
competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play.
F28: SHARED GROUND's mastery subtracts penalties from the claimed COUNT
where the mode card's shared score is claimed VALUE. Raised, not fixed;
scoring is ground-game's to rule on.
Also fixes design.py reporting a backticked path as no reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 20:51:46 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-09 00:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**The seat-band explanation is answered, 2026-08-08.** ground-game:
|
|
|
|
|
|
the two-relation-slot limit is an **intentional cap** on complexity and
|
|
|
|
|
|
play time; a third slot stays an extension rather than core r0. So the
|
|
|
|
|
|
6p flatness is designed, not a defect — and our sensitivity run is
|
|
|
|
|
|
welcome but would be measuring an extension, not the shipped game.
|
CB-WP-0046: the rule the placement encodes, and a log that names its rules
CB-WP-0045 left "nothing explains what a scope does" open and gave a
FALSE reason: that scoping is our Variant so no printed sentence exists.
The H2 package ships Rules_Text.csv -- twenty-two passages of
player-facing rules -- and nothing in clay-borg had ever read the file.
A wrong reason for an open item is worse than an open item; it retires
the question. Filed as F26 against ground-game: a package that adds a
FILE is invisible where one that adds a column is not.
The scope rule now renders under the table in the edition's own words,
only when a non-global scope is in play, matched by heading rather than
row number, and absent (never paraphrased) if the edition drops it.
The trial log stamps its variant on the begin marker -- a session
property, not an eighth column -- read off state.variant rather than the
--variant flag, because a bare `state.variant = v` leaves H2 inert and a
flag-stamped log would put false provenance on real player words. An
unstamped log reports `unrecorded`, never `ground-darvo-r0`.
Six mutations, six red. The sixth is the finding: every trials.py fixture
built its marker out of BEGIN, so nine checks followed BEGIN away from
what hotseat.rs writes and stayed green while real logs broke. A fixture
built from the constant under test cannot test the constant -- the
control is now a literal, asserted from both sides.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 19:15:52 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F26 — a package that adds a FILE is invisible, where a package that
|
|
|
|
|
|
adds a column is not.** `h2-scoped-problem-stress` ships
|
|
|
|
|
|
`Rules_Text.csv` — twenty-two passages of player-facing rules, including
|
|
|
|
|
|
the one passage that says what a `stress_scope` does. No reader in
|
|
|
|
|
|
clay-borg mentioned the file, so `edition-check` could not call it stale
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a file nothing reads is not out of date, it is unseen) and no gate
|
|
|
|
|
|
could call it unread. The rule the table's whole layout encodes sat in
|
|
|
|
|
|
the repo, reachable by no player, for the entire measured life of H2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Inert rather than underdetermined**: nothing is ambiguous about the
|
|
|
|
|
|
rule and the engine implements it correctly — the text simply could not
|
|
|
|
|
|
fire. Third instance of F18's shape and the first where the unit is a
|
|
|
|
|
|
file, which is why it is filed separately instead of folded in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raised against `ground-game` because the actionable half is theirs: a
|
|
|
|
|
|
package's manifest should name its own files, so that a consumer reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
none of them is a detectable state. clay-borg now reads the one passage
|
|
|
|
|
|
it needed (CB-WP-0046); the other twenty-one remain unread and that is
|
|
|
|
|
|
the standing evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a
vendor tool that covers what the gate checks
They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.
F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.
F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.
F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.
vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:
- It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
its check reports success into a red gate.
- Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-09 00:15:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**RULED 2026-08-08:** accepted as a process ask. Catalog and modules
|
|
|
|
|
|
will declare `consumed_files` / overlays so a consumer reading none of
|
|
|
|
|
|
a package's files is a detectable state. Tracked on their side under
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROUND-WP-0008.
|
25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it
says
Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.
But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.
So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.
rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO
rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218
rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000
THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.
The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.
Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.
F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:08:47 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F17 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
|
|
|
|
|
|
from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
|
|
|
|
|
|
positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**:
|
|
|
|
|
|
`games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs`, 200 games per cell, one number
|
|
|
|
|
|
varied — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ATTACK ranked | wins (2/3/4/5/6p) | attacks | DARVO armed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---:|---:|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 (below all) | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200 | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 75 (above SUPPORT) | **132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200** | 315–923 | 13–218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 95 (above SOLVE) | **0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 1400–5170 | 400–1000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The middle row is the finding: identical win counts at every seat
|
|
|
|
|
|
count**, while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO. Attacking
|
|
|
|
|
|
is not punished — it is **inert with respect to the goal**. Group success
|
|
|
|
|
|
is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK only costs anything when it
|
|
|
|
|
|
ranks above SOLVE and displaces it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**So the maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than the
|
|
|
|
|
|
phrasing.** There is no incentive because there is no *path*: ATTACK's
|
|
|
|
|
|
effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
|
|
|
|
|
|
`group_success`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end — F14 closed, and the reason they were
unplayed was ours
Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from
CB-WP-0029's roll, no override).
cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an
empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver,
so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach
the thing it was about.
--mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM
IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone
(top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2).
Same 37 commands, three answers.
AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn
its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode:
SHARED GROUND 132/165/190/200 -> identical free but pointless
COMMON PROBLEM 59/52/48/44 -> 59/52/48/34 a cost at six seats
BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34 roughly halved
The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted.
GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond
NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking
numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that
predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04
degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out.
F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK
has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your
score.
Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the
game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic
being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:38:27 +02:00
|
|
|
|
**Asked in all three modes 2026-08-07, and ATTACK earns its place in
|
|
|
|
|
|
none of them:**
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mode | never attack | attack sometimes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SHARED GROUND | 132/165/190/200 | **identical** — free but pointless |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| COMMON PROBLEM | 59/52/48/44 | 59/52/48/**34** — a cost at six seats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| BONDED COALITIONS | 131/134/132/116 | **59/52/48/34** — roughly halved |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**The coalitions row has a mechanism the data confirms.** GR-A07 flips a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond *networks* — so
|
|
|
|
|
|
attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking numbers in
|
|
|
|
|
|
E04 are **identical** to E03's, which is exactly what that predicts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
break every Bond and each seat becomes a coalition of one, so GR-E04
|
|
|
|
|
|
degenerates into GR-E03.
|
25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it
says
Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.
But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.
So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.
rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO
rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218
rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000
THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.
The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.
Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.
F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:08:47 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
|
|
|
|
|
|
is *about* not falling into; a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
|
|
|
|
|
|
design. The question for `ground-game` is whether the namesake mechanic
|
|
|
|
|
|
being unreachable in competent co-op play is intended.
|
CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered
Nine observations from the maintainer's session. Two are about the game
and go to the register; seven are about the engine and are this workplan.
F18 IS THE ONE THAT REFRAMES THE PASS. "I don't understand the GROUND
card" reads as a design problem. It is not: Actions.csv carries that
card's own tagline -- "Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide." -- and its
full rules text, and clay-borg never imported it. We vendored ONE OF
NINETEEN edition files. Everything else the engine knows is a
hand-transcription into GroundRules.md's 59 numbered rules, which is
enough to PLAY the game and gives a player nothing to READ. The page shows
`Clarify` where the card says "Ask What Happened -- Invite a concrete
account before judging." Registered as `inert`: the data exists and cannot
fire, because nothing reads it.
Found by a player saying he did not understand something. Rule coverage is
59/59 and has been for weeks.
F17: no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions. Registered as
a NOTE, not a finding -- no artifact demonstrates it, and under GameDesign
§3.1 it may not go to ground-game until one exists. One is cheap (count
ATTACK selections across the policy panel against hand quality). Owner is
ground-game if it survives, since it would be a design finding.
The workplan (M, chaos d8=1, no override, declaration 11 of window 2)
carries the seven engine observations. Two tasks are deliberately shaped
against past mistakes:
T01 must decide whether ADR-0011's hand-rolled CSV reader survives
Solutions.csv, whose microcopy and rules_text are prose with commas and
quotes -- ADR-0011 named exactly that as its revisit condition, so if the
reader cannot parse them the dependency argument gets re-run rather than a
fragile parser written.
T04 must first establish whether "click the deck to draw" is a legal move
at all. GR-A01 draws as part of INVESTIGATE; the deck is not a thing a
player may take from. If it is not legal, that is a FINDING for
ground-game -- the maintainer expected an interaction the rules do not
offer -- and not a feature. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered
where it could not act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 15:34:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F18 — the engine imports one of nineteen edition files, so the cards
|
|
|
|
|
|
cannot say what they do.** Reported as *"I don't understand the GROUND
|
|
|
|
|
|
card"* — which is not a design gap: `Actions.csv` carries that card's
|
|
|
|
|
|
tagline (*"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide."*) and full rules text,
|
|
|
|
|
|
and clay-borg never imported it. Every other card is the same: a player
|
|
|
|
|
|
sees `Clarify` where the card reads *"Ask What Happened — Invite a
|
|
|
|
|
|
concrete account before judging."* **`inert`**: the data exists and
|
|
|
|
|
|
cannot fire, because nothing reads it. **Ours, and CB-WP-0028 fixes it.**
|
CB-WP-0037 T02: the engine's rules against the edition's
Vendored DARVO.csv, Relations.csv and Scenarios.csv — the three unread
files that carry mechanism. The engine has implemented the DARVO sequence
and relation formation/breaking from GroundRules.md since the beginning,
and had never read the game owner's statement of them.
Every checkable clause agrees, and agreement is recorded rather than
noted: a survey that finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from
one never run. The two hardest clauses to notice were already right —
Focus placed "even if the Attack was cancelled", and Focus removed when
the sequence ends before REVERSE.
The tests are tripwires, not derivations. The match was made by a person
reading prose, and that reading goes stale in silence when the prose
changes; each behaviour pins the phrase it was read from, so a reworded
edition goes red and asks for a human. Mutation-proven by rewording the
cancelled-Attack clause.
F25 raised, and it is the real yield: Scenarios.csv carries
threshold_2_players/3_4/5_6, starting_stress and round_track, and the
engine hardcodes all three — a match returning 5/7/9, stress: 2 at setup,
five rounds. They agree on all four scenarios. These are the most
contested numbers in the project; the whole 4/6/9 vs 5/7/9 episode turned
on them, and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather
than by reading the file that owns them.
Also pinned: Problems.csv and Scenarios.csv both state the deal and the
engine reads only the first. They agree; nothing was checking.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 00:21:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F25 — the engine hardcodes numbers the edition states.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
`GroundState::threshold` is a `match` returning 5/7/9 while
|
|
|
|
|
|
`Scenarios.csv` carries `threshold_2_players`, `threshold_3_4_players`
|
|
|
|
|
|
and `threshold_5_6_players`; setup writes `stress: 2` against *"All
|
|
|
|
|
|
players start at Stress 2."*; the engine plays five rounds against a
|
|
|
|
|
|
printed 1–5 track. **All three agree, on all four scenarios**, and that
|
|
|
|
|
|
is the finding rather than the reassurance: these are the most contested
|
|
|
|
|
|
numbers in the project — the whole 4/6/9 versus 5/7/9 episode turned on
|
|
|
|
|
|
them — and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather
|
|
|
|
|
|
than by reading the file that owns them. **`inert`**, role `default`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
green because they agree, red the moment either side moves. **Ours.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same shape as F24.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0037 T01: F18 gets a reproduction, and F24 falls out of it
F18 was the only open finding clay-borg owns, the only register row
lacking a reproduction, and the only off-target metric. It is also
understated: it reads as display data, but among the 14 unvendored files
are DARVO.csv (mandatory_effect, advance), Relations.csv (formation,
breaking) and Scenarios.csv — rules the engine already implements from a
secondary source and has never checked against the primary one.
The reproduction records column reads AT THE ACCESSOR rather than counting
them from the source: a list beside the code would be a second copy of a
fact the get calls already carry, and grepping would over-count because
six column names are shared between vendored files.
The first version was wrong in this repo's signature way — it watched
Table::at only, so it called visibility, required_solution and point_value
unread when the engine reads all three through problems_of's own index
lookups. Correct about the accessor, wrong about the engine: the ADR-0018
family, committed inside the artifact built to measure it. Problems.csv
went 7/13 to 10/13 once the manual reader was recorded too.
F24 raised: solution_deck() is a Rust literal that never opens
Solutions.csv. It agrees today, which is the point — the engine is right
by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading. Role `default`, with a
test that goes red the moment either side moves.
open, lacking a reproduction: 1 -> 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 23:11:17 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F24 — the draw pile is a Rust literal.** `solution_deck()` builds six
|
|
|
|
|
|
of each suit from an array and never opens `Solutions.csv`, whose `suit`
|
|
|
|
|
|
and `quantity` columns say the same thing. **They agree today** — 24
|
|
|
|
|
|
rows, six per suit — so nothing is wrong now, and that is the point:
|
|
|
|
|
|
the engine is right by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**`inert`**: the data exists and cannot fire. Role `default`, not
|
|
|
|
|
|
`counterexample` — the reproduction is green *because* the two agree,
|
|
|
|
|
|
which is the state GameDesign §1.3 says to expect from a documented
|
|
|
|
|
|
provisional choice, and it turns red the moment either side moves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Ours.** CB-WP-0037 T02 deletes the literal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|