CB-WP-0021 T01/T02/T05: the engine plays its own data — AM-7 blocks

ADR-0011 decided it: vendor the CSV with a checked digest, read it with
a ~50-line reader, and let the hashes move.

The declaration's constraint was measured against the WRONG BUDGET. It
said a CSV crate costs 21,613 against AM-4a's 3,798 of headroom, '5.7x
over, settled by measurement'. But setup and problem_priorities are
cfg(scenarios) and are not in the shipped runtime at all, so AM-4a never
sees them. Against AM-4b, csv costs 17,651 against 19,742 -- it FITS,
with 2,091 to spare. It is refused anyway, on proportion: 89% of the
budget's remaining capacity to read 20 rows. The revisit condition is
stated (nested quoting, embedded newlines, multiple dialects).

GR-S01 now deals Surface + hidden 1..=k as ruled, with edition values and
suits. Measured: 6/9/12 available against thresholds 5/7/9 -- the game is
winnable at every seat count, which is what the maintainer could not do.
gd0001 is INVERTED, not deleted, and now also asserts the 6/9/12 so a
deal that is reachable for the wrong reason still fails.

Blast radius was scenario expectations, exactly as the ADR predicted: no
scenario pinned a hash and no bundle is committed. Six scenarios and two
unit tests updated, each with a note. gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p is
RENAMED to -reachable- and rewritten as the non-provisional import check
ground-game asked for by name. gr-e03's setup was restructured, not just
renumbered: with values 2,2,2 its personal-edge test would have tied
three ways and asserted nothing.

BLOCKING: AM-7 fails at median 0.845 against its 0.9 floor. Isolated
across three runs -- 3 problems + stand-in 0.97, 3 problems + edition
0.909, 4 problems + edition 0.845. State is BOUNDED (proven: identical
after 5k and 100k events), so this is not the unbounded-growth defect
AM-7 exists to catch; it is a bigger working set streaming a long log.
Whether AM-7's floor is still right for a larger aggregate is a spec
question and lowering it requires an ADR, so it is not being tuned here.

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

scenarios/ground/gr-e03-common-problem.yaml

@@ -15,11 +15,15 @@ setup:
   patch:
     "round": 5
     "mode": CommonProblem
-    # Every Problem claimed: 1+2+3+4 = 10, over the 5-6p threshold of 9.
+    # Four of the five dealt Problems claimed: 2+2+3+2 = 9, exactly the
+    # 5-6p threshold. P3 takes the 3-value Problem so the personal edge
+    # this scenario exists to test has a unique winner — with the edition
+    # values (2,2,2,3,3) an even spread would tie three ways and the test
+    # would assert nothing about GR-E03.
     "problems.1.claimed_by": 0
     "problems.2.claimed_by": 1
-    "problems.3.claimed_by": 2
-    "problems.4.claimed_by": 3
+    "problems.4.claimed_by": 2
+    "problems.3.claimed_by": 3
     "problems.2.face_up": true
     "problems.3.face_up": true
     "problems.4.face_up": true
@@ -66,11 +70,11 @@ expect:
   events:
     - kind: GameEnded
   state:
-    "outcome.total": 10
+    "outcome.total": 9
     "outcome.threshold": 9
     "outcome.group_success": true
     # GR-E03: claimed value −1 per Blame held.
-    "outcome.personal.3": 2
+    "outcome.personal.3": 0
     "outcome.personal.2": 3
     # P4 claimed 4 and still loses: the Blame is load-bearing here.
     "outcome.winners": [2]