CB-EV-0033 + GROUND-RPT-0006: report the boards and modes to ground-game

Five things worth their time, four of them asks rather than statements:

F29 SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the SAME BOARD -- identical suit and value at
every priority, every cell matching exactly. Not called a defect (a
reskin is legitimate) but "four scenarios" is three boards. Asked
whether it is intended.

F30 SCN_04 is materially harder at 2p: 52/100 against 67 and 73, with
every other parameter held by the edition itself -- same deal shape,
same 6 available points, same threshold, same starting Stress. The lone
difference is that it is the only 2p deal needing two of one suit.
Causation explicitly NOT claimed; the falsifier is stated. Sensitivity:
at 4p SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is not the hard board there.

The modes finding, corrected in their favour: we previously reported the
three modes produced identical play. That was OUR INSTRUMENT, not their
game -- the bot never read the Mode card. With a mode-aware bot, group
success is unchanged in 34 of 36 cells but coalition size moves by half
again at 4p. So the modes decide the distribution of the win and the
threshold decides survival independently of it.

F28 (mastery counts cards where the shared score counts points) and F26
(a package that adds a FILE is invisible to a consumer) promoted to
reported -- both need their ruling, neither changed on our side.

F17 and F26 move raised -> reported now that they are in a delivered
report.

The register crossed the ~400-line loadability limit, so prose for
CLOSED findings moved to FindingRegister-closed.md. The rows are
untouched and `make design` still reads one file -- ADR-0012 D5's
reasoning about mixing open and closed applies to files too.

Report left UNCOMMITTED in ground-game: their tree has live uncommitted
work from their own agent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

evidence/CB-EV-0033-boards-and-modes.md

@@ -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.