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

CB-EV-0033 + GROUND-RPT-0006: report the boards and modes to ground-game
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Details

Browse source 
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>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-08 23:43:43 +02:00
parent 15c142b9fe
commit 0b8599bd88
3 changed files with 359 additions and 177 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

123
evidence/CB-EV-0033-boards-and-modes.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
# CB-EV-0033 — the four boards and the three modes, measured
date: 2026-08-08
produced by: [CB-WP-0047](../workplans/CB-WP-0047-all-four-boards-and-all-three-modes.md),
[CB-WP-0049](../workplans/CB-WP-0049-a-seat-that-plays-its-own-objective.md)
instrument: `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` (`make panels`)
reported to ground-game as: `reports/260808-clay-borg-boards-and-modes.md`
## What was run
4 scenarios × 3 modes × 3 seat bands × 2 policies, **100 games per cell**,
seeds 0..100, every seat filled by the same bot.
| policy | what it is |
|---|---|
| `greedy` | `GreedyPolicy`, which **never reads `state.mode`** |
| `objective` | `ObjectivePolicy`, which plays its seat's own objective, read off `GroundState::score` |
**Every cell asserts `games == 100` and `played == 100`** — a game that
ran is not a game that was played (CB-REV-0003 #2), and a short column is
a sample nobody chose (CB-REV-0002 #1).
**Both policies are proven blind** to what their seat cannot see
([ADR-0023](../decisions/ADR-0023-a-policy-is-bound-by-what-its-seat-can-see.md)):
vary only face-down Problems and other seats' hands, and neither changes
its move. The control is proven against a deliberate peeker first.
## 1 — SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board
Identical suit and value at **every** priority. Every cell matches
exactly, in both policies, at all three seat bands.
Not a defect — a reskin is a legitimate design choice — but **"four
scenarios" buys three boards**, and a panel that treated them as four
independent samples would be counting one of them twice. Pinned by
`which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct`, so a future divergence is a
decision rather than a drift.
## 2 — SCN_04 is the hard board at 2 players
| board | 2p group success (greedy, /100) |
|---|---|
| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | 67 |
| SCN_03 | 73 |
| **SCN_04** | **52** |
**The 2p deals are identical in every respect except one.** All four
scenarios deal Surface + priorities 1–2, all four give values 2+2+2 = 6
available against a threshold of 5, and all four start at Stress 2 over
five rounds. The single difference is the **suit multiset**:
| board | 2p suits |
|---|---|
| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | Repair, Clarify, Boundary |
| SCN_03 | Boundary, Clarify, Repair |
| **SCN_04** | **Repair, Clarify, Repair** |
SCN_04 is the only deck that needs **two of one suit** in the 2p deal.
Because every other parameter is held fixed by the edition itself, this
is close to a controlled comparison — but **the causal claim is not
measured**: nothing here demonstrates that the second Repair is what
costs the 15 points. The falsifier is a deck with a doubled suit that
does *not* lose group success.
## 3 — every board is a formality at 6 players
100/100 group success in all twelve 6p cells, both policies, every mode.
Consistent with F17's shape. Reported, not acted on.
## 4 — the modes change who wins, not whether the group succeeds
`greedy` vs `objective`, group success:
**Unchanged in 34 of 36 cells.** SCN_03 at 4p moves 99 → 100 in all three
modes, which is the SOLVE-by-card-value refinement and not a mode effect
(it moves under SHARED GROUND too).
Winning **seats** per game, BONDED COALITIONS:
| board | 4p greedy | 4p objective |
|---|---|---|
| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | 2.04 | **2.98** |
| SCN_03 | 2.12 | **3.29** |
| SCN_04 | 2.05 | **3.01** |
COMMON PROBLEM at 6p: 1.10 → 1.17. Everything else flat.
**The control that makes this mean anything:** under SHARED GROUND the
two policies agree at all but ≤2 decision points across twelve boards. A
moving column is therefore mode-awareness and not simply a different bot.
### Where the modes *can* differ
**SOLVE always claims for the actor**, so a seat maximising its own score
and one maximising the group's want the same SOLVE in nearly every
position. That is a fact about GROUND's action set and it bounds how far
apart any two policies can get. The two real divergences:
- **SUPPORT regulates someone else** — worth less when the beneficiary is
a rival, worth *more* when a Bond merges them into my coalition and my
score is the coalition's sum;
- **SOLVE's value is the card's value**, which greedy ignores entirely.
### The seat-band pattern, and one untested explanation
2p: nothing moves in any mode. 4p: the largest effect. 6p: **nothing**
under BONDED COALITIONS.
**Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the effect appears and
disappears with every other parameter held. A candidate explanation is
that **two relation slots per seat cap network growth**, so at 6p the
incentive exists and cannot be acted on. **Untested.** The falsifier is a
run with a third relation slot: if coalition size at 6p then moves the
way it does at 4p, the cap is the cause.
## What this does not establish
- **No policy models a rival playing their objective.** A competitive
mode in which nobody anticipates an opponent is a weak test of that
mode. F27 stays `reported`, not resolved.
- **No felt play.** Every number here is bots.
- **Bond-scoped joint SOLVE remains untested** (CB-EV-0032 criterion 4,
unchanged): these policies read the mode, not the module.

198
specs/FindingRegister-closed.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
# Finding register — closed findings
The prose for findings that are **withdrawn** or **applied**. Split out of
[`FindingRegister.md`](FindingRegister.md) when it crossed the ~400-line
loadability limit (CB-WP-0049).
**The register itself is unchanged.** Every row still lives in the
machine-readable block there, and `make design` still reads exactly one
file. What moved is the *history* — ADR-0012 D5's reasoning applies: a
default view that mixes open and closed loses the queue property, and the
same is true of a file.
A closed finding is not deleted, because the account of why something was
withdrawn is often the more useful half.
- **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).
- **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*.
- **F23 — a false claim propagated five times by citation instead of
measurement.** CB-EV-0024 §6 stated that chaos window 2 produced **zero
overrides** and that its retirement condition was untestable. CB-EV-0025,
CB-EV-0026, CB-EV-0027 and CB-WP-0029 each repeated it, citing the one
before.
**It was false.** Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8 and overrode —
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.
**The subject makes it worse.** Three of those four files were arguing
that this project's defect is claims asserted without their
reproduction — while carrying one. `facts-check` catches a copied number
that disagrees with its source; nothing catches a number with **no
source**, asserted once and cited thereafter.
**`applied`** — ADR-0017 corrects it, and each of the four files carries
an in-place correction rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5). **The
general defect is not fixed**: it is the same family as the five
wrong-subject instances, and still has no control.
- **F22 — does the component supply bind the game? Asked, measured, and
withdrawn.** `Tokens.csv` gives every component a `quantity` — 6
Protection, 5 Denied, 12 relation links — and **no numbered rule
mentions a supply**, so the engine could in principle mint a seventh
Protection token (`saturating_add`, no bound, `lib.rs:986`). Measured
over **750 games**, 2–6 seats, greedy and random: Protection reaches 1
per seat and 2 on the table; Denied 3 of 5; links **exactly 12 of 12**,
never over, because GR-L01's two-slot rule *is* the twelve-token supply
written twice. Focus/Blame: 0 conflicts. **Withdrawn — nothing to
report.** Registered as a stated negative because a survey that finds
nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one that was never run.
The check ships as a standing control (ADR-0016 D3): if play ever does
exceed a quantity, that is a **finding for ground-game** — *does the box
bound the game, or do the rules?* — and **not** a bound for the engine to
invent.
- **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*.
- **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.
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end. Closed 2026-08-07, and
the reason they were unplayed was ours.** `cb-play` built every game with
`ScoringMode::SharedGround` and passed an **empty patch**, so two of the
three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way anyone plays. The
mode was patchable in *scenarios* and not from the *driver*. `--mode`
added; all three now play to the end and give **different winners from
identical play**: shared → all four seats, common → P3 alone, coalitions
→ P1+P2. **`applied`** — 800 games per mode in the reproduction.
### 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.

215
specs/FindingRegister.md
View file

@ -53,12 +53,48 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
| F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
| F23 | inconsistent | applied | decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
| F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
| F26 | inert | raised | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F26 | inert | reported | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F27 | unplayed | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
| F28 | underdetermined | raised | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F29 | inconsistent | reported | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F30 | degenerate | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F28 | underdetermined | reported | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
<!-- design-register:end -->
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.
- **F29 — SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board.** Identical suit and
value at every priority; every measured cell matches exactly at every
seat band under both policies. **Not called a defect** — a reskin is a
legitimate design choice — but "four scenarios" is three boards, and a
study treating them as four independent samples double-counts one.
`inconsistent` because two artifacts that present as distinct are not;
the register does not have a kind for "intended duplication", and
inventing one before ground-game rules would be answering for them.
**Sensitivity:** none — this is an identity, not a measurement. It
holds for every seed and every seat band by construction, and the test
is a characterisation so a future divergence is a decision.
- **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.
- **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.
@ -133,102 +169,6 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
it needed (CB-WP-0046); the other twenty-one remain unread and that is
the standing evidence.
- **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).
- **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*.
- **F23 — a false claim propagated five times by citation instead of
measurement.** CB-EV-0024 §6 stated that chaos window 2 produced **zero
overrides** and that its retirement condition was untestable. CB-EV-0025,
CB-EV-0026, CB-EV-0027 and CB-WP-0029 each repeated it, citing the one
before.
**It was false.** Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8 and overrode —
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.
**The subject makes it worse.** Three of those four files were arguing
that this project's defect is claims asserted without their
reproduction — while carrying one. `facts-check` catches a copied number
that disagrees with its source; nothing catches a number with **no
source**, asserted once and cited thereafter.
**`applied`** — ADR-0017 corrects it, and each of the four files carries
an in-place correction rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5). **The
general defect is not fixed**: it is the same family as the five
wrong-subject instances, and still has no control.
- **F22 — does the component supply bind the game? Asked, measured, and
withdrawn.** `Tokens.csv` gives every component a `quantity` — 6
Protection, 5 Denied, 12 relation links — and **no numbered rule
mentions a supply**, so the engine could in principle mint a seventh
Protection token (`saturating_add`, no bound, `lib.rs:986`). Measured
over **750 games**, 2–6 seats, greedy and random: Protection reaches 1
per seat and 2 on the table; Denied 3 of 5; links **exactly 12 of 12**,
never over, because GR-L01's two-slot rule *is* the twelve-token supply
written twice. Focus/Blame: 0 conflicts. **Withdrawn — nothing to
report.** Registered as a stated negative because a survey that finds
nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one that was never run.
The check ships as a standing control (ADR-0016 D3): if play ever does
exceed a quantity, that is a **finding for ground-game** — *does the box
bound the game, or do the rules?* — and **not** a bound for the engine to
invent.
- **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*.
- **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.
- **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**:
@ -313,82 +253,3 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
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.
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end. Closed 2026-08-07, and
the reason they were unplayed was ours.** `cb-play` built every game with
`ScoringMode::SharedGround` and passed an **empty patch**, so two of the
three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way anyone plays. The
mode was patchable in *scenarios* and not from the *driver*. `--mode`
added; all three now play to the end and give **different winners from
identical play**: shared → all four seats, common → P3 alone, coalitions
→ P1+P2. **`applied`** — 800 games per mode in the reproduction.
### 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.