GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end — F14 closed, and the reason they were

unplayed was ours

Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from
CB-WP-0029's roll, no override).

cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an
empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver,
so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach
the thing it was about.

--mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM
IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone
(top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2).
Same 37 commands, three answers.

AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn
its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode:

  SHARED GROUND     132/165/190/200 -> identical      free but pointless
  COMMON PROBLEM     59/52/48/44    -> 59/52/48/34    a cost at six seats
  BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34    roughly halved

The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted.
GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond
NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking
numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that
predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04
degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out.

F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK
has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your
score.

Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the
game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic
being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended.

make all: exit 0.

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

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
 | F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
 | F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
 | F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
-| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
+| F14 | unplayed | applied | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 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 | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
@@ -151,10 +151,21 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
   effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
   `group_success`.
 
-  **Bounded to SHARED GROUND.** These are co-op games. Blame costs
-  *personal* score, so ATTACK may well earn its place in GR-E03 and
-  GR-E04 — **which have never been played to the end (F14)**, and that is
-  where this question should be asked next.
+  **Asked in all three modes 2026-08-07, and ATTACK earns its place in
+  none of them:**
+
+  | mode | never attack | attack sometimes |
+  |---|---|---|
+  | SHARED GROUND | 132/165/190/200 | **identical** — free but pointless |
+  | COMMON PROBLEM | 59/52/48/44 | 59/52/48/**34** — a cost at six seats |
+  | BONDED COALITIONS | 131/134/132/116 | **59/52/48/34** — roughly halved |
+
+  **The coalitions row has a mechanism the data confirms.** GR-A07 flips a
+  Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond *networks* — so
+  attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking numbers in
+  E04 are **identical** to E03's, which is exactly what that predicts:
+  break every Bond and each seat becomes a coalition of one, so GR-E04
+  degenerates into GR-E03.
 
   **Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
   is *about* not falling into; a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
@@ -177,10 +188,14 @@ 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.** Nineteen passes, never
-  played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
-  playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
-  recording the artifact.
+- **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