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

CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse source 
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>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-06 15:34:58 +02:00
parent 5816d334ad
commit 02402c36b2
2 changed files with 297 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

20
specs/FindingRegister.md
View file

@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
| F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
| F17 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
| F18 | inert | raised | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
<!-- design-register:end -->
@ -73,6 +75,24 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
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*.
- **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.**
- **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

277
workplans/CB-WP-0028-the-table-you-sit-at.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
---
id: CB-WP-0028
kind: product
title: "The table you sit at: the cards' own words, an overhead view, and a game you solve rather than survive"
status: ready
---
# Purpose
```
structural tier M (imports more of the authoritative edition, which is
an external dataset under AM-4's budgets, and touches
the rendering the coverage gate is written against)
chaos d8 = 1 → no override
declared tier M
```
Declaration 11 of chaos window 2. Tier M: survey and decision merged;
adversarial review optional.
## Nine observations from play
The maintainer played with the new meta panel and reported nine things.
**Two are findings about the game, seven are about the engine**, and the
split matters because they go to different places.
| # | observation | where it goes |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | no incentive to attack while holding positive cards | **register** — a game-design finding |
| 2 | *"I don't understand the GROUND card"* | **here** — and it is not a design gap (below) |
| 3 | overhead view: players around a table, stacks on it | T03 |
| 4 | click the draw stack to take cards | T04 |
| 5 | optional auto-draw | T04 |
| 6 | play again / stop belong in the meta column | T05 |
| 7 | so does the full log | T05 |
| 8 | *"Game over"* is wrong when you won | T06 |
| 9 | rankings — MVP, most problems solved | T07 |
## Observation 2 is a data-import gap, and it reframes the pass
*"I don't understand the GROUND card or why other cards should be played
to the table"* reads as a design problem. It is not. **The card explains
itself in the dataset and we never imported the explanation.**
`ground-game/editions/*/Actions.csv`, the GROUND row:
> **tagline:** *"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide."*
> **rules_text:** *"After all actions are revealed, choose one mode:
> GR—Ground & Restate: −2 Stress, ready Freedom… OU—Observe & Uphold…"*
**We vendored one file of nineteen.** `editions/ground-darvo-r0/` holds
`Problems.csv` and nothing else; `Actions`, `Solutions`, `Modes`,
`Scenarios`, `Relations`, `DARVO`, `Tokens`, `Glossary` and the rest live
only in `ground-game`. Everything the engine knows about them 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*.
So the page shows `Clarify` where the card says **"Ask What Happened —
Invite a concrete account before judging."**
**This is the most valuable thing in the pass**, and it was found by a
player saying he did not understand something rather than by any gate.
Rule coverage is 59/59 and has been for weeks.
## Task: decide what else to import, and what it costs
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```
`decisions/ADR-0015-*.md` (tier M merges survey and decision).
**ADR-0011 is the precedent and it constrains this.** It vendored
`Problems.csv` with a checked digest and a ~50-line hand reader, and
**refused the `csv` crate on proportion** — 17,651 lines against AM-4b's
19,742 of remaining headroom, 89% of the budget to read 20 rows.
Decide:
- **which files**, and the answer is not "all of them". `Actions`,
`Solutions` and `Modes` carry text a player reads. `BOM`, `Print_Manifest`,
`Back_Designs`, `Symbols` are production artifacts for a physical print
run and have no business here.
- **whether the hand reader survives contact.** `Solutions.csv` has
`microcopy` and `rules_text` — prose fields with commas, quotes and
possibly embedded newlines. ADR-0011 named exactly this as the revisit
condition: *"nested quoting, embedded newlines, multiple dialects."*
**If the reader cannot parse them correctly, say so and re-run the
dependency argument rather than writing a fragile parser.**
- **what happens when text and rules disagree.** `GroundRules.md` was
derived by hand from these files. If a `rules_text` contradicts a
numbered rule, that is a **finding**, and it goes to the register — not
a quiet edit of either.
- **`Extensions.csv` exists** and names content deliberately outside the
core. Decide whether it is imported at all; the answer is probably no,
but *"we did not know it existed"* must not be the reason.
## Task: the cards say what they do
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```
Every card a player can see carries its own title, tagline and rules text,
from the edition — not from a phrase we invented.
- action cards: GROUND, SOLVE, INVESTIGATE, SUPPORT, ATTACK;
- Solution cards: the title and microcopy, not just the suit;
- the mode in play, with its own description.
**Controls:**
- **a test asserts the text comes from the dataset**, not from a Rust
literal — the whole point is that the game's own words reach the player,
and a hand-copied string drifts from the source it copies;
- the drag affordance still works: the explanation is *additional*, and
CB-WP-0020 T02 already found that replacing a label with an explanation
loses the label;
- **the page stays readable.** Five action cards with full rules text is a
wall; the tagline is the default and the rules text is on demand.
## Task: an overhead view of a real table
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T03
status: todo
priority: high
```
> *"Players sitting around the table, the draw and discard stacks on it.
> An overhead view of a game table would instantly help with understanding
> what is going on."*
The seats become positions around a table rather than a row of cards; the
Problems, draw and discard sit in the middle; each seat's played card
appears in front of that seat.
**This subsumes `relations_svg`**, which already places seats on a circle
for the relationship graph — so the layout exists and is drawn twice, once
as a circle and once as a row. **One table, not two diagrams.**
**Controls:**
- the coverage gate still passes: every view field appears in the parsed
document. CB-WP-0027 showed a reflow costs nothing when probes name
facts; this is a bigger reflow and the same rule applies;
- **the viewer's own seat is identifiable at a glance** — a table where
you cannot find yourself is worse than a list;
- 2 through 6 seats all lay out without overlap, asserted per seat count
rather than eyeballed at 3.
## Task: take cards from the stack, or let the table do it
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
```
Observations 4 and 5. Clicking the draw stack to take a card is the
natural gesture; auto-draw is for when that stops being interesting.
**Both are subject to a rule the engine already has.** Drawing is not a
free action — GR-A01 draws a Solution as part of INVESTIGATE, and the deck
is not a thing a player may simply take from. **So this task must first
establish whether "click to draw" is a legal move at all**, and if it is
not, it is a **finding for `ground-game`**, not a feature: the maintainer
expected an interaction the rules do not offer, and that gap is the
signal.
**Do not implement a draw the rules do not have.** CB-WP-0023 exists
because SOLVE was offered where it could not act.
**Controls:**
- the answer to *"is clicking the deck a legal move?"* is in the task
record with the rule that settles it;
- auto-draw changes no outcome — a game played with it and without it from
the same seed produces the same end-state hash, or it is not automation
but a rules change.
## Task: the meta column takes the controls and the log
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
```
Observations 6 and 7. `play again` and `end session` move to the meta
column, and the ending page gets the same two-column shape as the table —
it currently has none.
The full log belongs there too, which CB-WP-0027 did for the live page and
not for the ending page.
**Controls:**
- CB-WP-0024 T01's seal still works: acknowledging the end must still
remove every control, wherever they now live;
- the ending page's existing tests pass unchanged or the change is a
regression.
## Task: a game you solve
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T06
status: todo
priority: medium
```
> *"'Game Over' is negative and should only be used for lost games. If the
> players won, let's use 'Game solved'."*
**Right, and it is more than tone.** GROUND is a co-operative game about
repairing a situation; `group_success` means the table *solved* something.
"Game over" is arcade vocabulary for a failure state, and using it for a
win tells the player the wrong thing about what they just did.
**Controls:**
- the heading is a function of `outcome.group_success`, asserted **both
ways** — a test that only checks the win case passes for a page that
always says "solved";
- the no-outcome case (a game that ended badly) keeps its own wording and
claims neither.
## Task: who did what — rankings that are not invented
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T07
status: todo
priority: medium
```
> *"A ranking of players in the final stats. 'Most valuable player', 'most
> problems solved' and other conditions that might apply."*
`OutcomeView` already carries `personal`, `winners`, `coalitions` and
`mastery`, and the aggregate knows who claimed each Problem.
**The risk is inventing scoring the game does not have.** *"Most problems
solved"* is countable from `claimed_by` and is a fact. *"Most valuable
player"* is a **judgement**, and any formula for it is a rule we made up.
So: **report what the game counts, and mark anything derived as ours.**
A superlative computed from real data is fine; a superlative presented as
if the rules defined it is the same defect as a provisional default
silently canonised.
**Controls:**
- every ranking names its source: a rule id, or *"clay-borg's reading"*;
- ties are handled and shown as ties, not broken arbitrarily — `Modes.csv`
has a `scoring_tiebreak` column, so the game may already say how;
- a ranking that no seat leads (nobody solved anything) renders as that,
not as an empty list.
## Task: evidence
```task
id: CB-WP-0028-T08
status: todo
priority: medium
```
`evidence/CB-EV-0026-*.md`.
- **Whether importing the card text changed what the maintainer
understood** — observation 2 is the acceptance test and it has a person
attached to it.
- **Whether any `rules_text` contradicted `GroundRules.md`.** Nineteen
files were hand-transcribed into 59 rules; if the import surfaces a
disagreement, that is the most valuable output of this pass.
- **Whether "click the deck to draw" was legal**, and if not, what went to
`ground-game`.
- **What the overhead view cost the coverage gate**, against CB-WP-0027's
finding that a probe naming a fact survives a reflow.
- **Quote CB-WP-0027's cost by re-running the instrument.**