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>

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -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