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-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 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
| F17 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| F18 | inert | raised | — | — | 2026-08-06 | 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 |
|
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-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 — "the game is too easy at 5–6 seats", withdrawn the day it was
|
|
|
|
|
|
raised.** Claimed from `GreedyPolicy` winning 200/200 at those seat
|
|
|
|
|
|
counts. A `FirstLegal` policy scores **0%** on the identical deals, and
|
|
|
|
|
|
at two seats it *beats* greedy — two unsophisticated agents span the
|
|
|
|
|
|
whole range, so the measurement was about the policy. Caught by the
|
|
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0025 adversarial review (C4) **before transmission**; it would
|
|
|
|
|
|
have been the fifth wrong premise sent to ground-game and the worst,
|
|
|
|
|
|
since GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly this number. The withdrawal
|
|
|
|
|
|
was reported (ADR-0012 D5). Its reproduction is `difficulty.rs`, whose
|
|
|
|
|
|
policy panel is plural *because of this finding*.
|
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
|
|
|
|
- **F21 — dragging did not work until after the first note was saved.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported 2026-08-06: *"I could not drag and drop at the beginning but
|
|
|
|
|
|
after I added the first comment it worked."* **`note`, and I could not
|
|
|
|
|
|
reproduce it.** The gesture logic is correct against the served page
|
|
|
|
|
|
(the JS harness posts properly), the ghost carries `pointer-events:none`
|
|
|
|
|
|
so it cannot intercept the drop, and the markup is identical before and
|
|
|
|
|
|
after the note — the 303 re-renders the same page from the same state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**Candidates, none confirmed:** a `<details>` toggle inside an action
|
|
|
|
|
|
card shifting the layout mid-drag; a first-load timing difference; or a
|
|
|
|
|
|
browser-level pointer capture. **Reproducing it needs a browser, which
|
|
|
|
|
|
no test here has** — the same gap F19 named. Recorded rather than
|
|
|
|
|
|
guessed at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **F20 — a click target wearing a drag affordance made the ending
|
|
|
|
|
|
controls look dead.** `play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move
|
|
|
|
|
|
buttons carried `.pick`, which is `cursor:grab`. A grab cursor invites a
|
|
|
|
|
|
**drag**, and a drag released over nothing posts nothing — so the button
|
|
|
|
|
|
did nothing and appeared broken. Reported as two separate observations
|
|
|
|
|
|
(*"the button shows a hand to pick up that it probably shouldn't"* and
|
|
|
|
|
|
*"I can't start another game or stop the server"*) which are one defect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**`applied`**: click targets now carry `.tap`. **This extends CB-WP-0017's
|
|
|
|
|
|
rule** — interactive and inert must not look identical — to *click and
|
|
|
|
|
|
drag must not look identical either*.
|
2026-08-06 21:51:58 +02:00
|
|
|
|
- **F19 — the engine shipped a table nobody could play on, and every gate
|
|
|
|
|
|
was green.** CB-WP-0028's overhead view was 620px tall, so the action
|
|
|
|
|
|
cards sat a screen below the Problems; dragging between them was
|
|
|
|
|
|
physically impossible. Seats were drawn *inside* the table, and the
|
|
|
|
|
|
`table` drop target was a card among the buttons rather than the drawn
|
|
|
|
|
|
surface. **`make all` passed throughout**, because every test asserted
|
|
|
|
|
|
the DOM was correct — which it was. The JS harness even posts a correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
gesture against a page a human cannot drag on. `degenerate`: the feature
|
|
|
|
|
|
fires and collapses play. **`applied`** — fixed 2026-08-06, with height,
|
|
|
|
|
|
seat-position and single-drop-zone proxies added. **They are proxies.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing here lays out a browser, and the gap CB-EV-0026 named — that no
|
|
|
|
|
|
gate measures whether a player can play — is unclosed.
|
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
|
|
|
|
- **F17 — no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions.**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported from play, 2026-08-06: *"there is no incentive to play attacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
as long as I have positive cards."* If true, ATTACK is a dead branch for
|
|
|
|
|
|
most of a game, which would make GR-A06/A07/A08 and the whole Rivalry
|
|
|
|
|
|
half of the relation system reachable only when a player is out of good
|
|
|
|
|
|
options. **`note`, not a finding**: no artifact demonstrates it yet. One
|
|
|
|
|
|
is cheap — count ATTACK selections across the policy panel and compare
|
|
|
|
|
|
against hand quality — and until it exists this may not go to
|
|
|
|
|
|
`ground-game` (GameDesign §3.1). **Owner is ground-game if it survives**;
|
|
|
|
|
|
it would be a design finding, not an engine one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **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-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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|