CB-WP-0049 T02/T03: a seat that plays its objective, and F27 splits in two

objective() reads GroundState::score (now public) rather than restating
what winning is; a copy in the bot would disagree with the kernel the
first time ground-game rules on F28.

Working out WHERE the modes can differ was most of the task and it
bounds the result: SOLVE always claims for the actor, so own-score and
group-score want the same SOLVE nearly everywhere. That is a fact about
GROUND's action set, not a shortcoming of the bot. Two real divergences,
both readable off the table: SUPPORT regulates someone else (worth less
against a rival, worth MORE under coalitions where a Bond merges them
into my side), and SOLVE's value is the card's value, which greedy
ignores entirely.

THE RESULT — F27 splits in two:
  group success  UNCHANGED in 34 of 36 cells
  who wins       MOVES: BONDED COALITIONS at 4p goes 2.04 -> 2.98,
                 2.12 -> 3.29, 2.05 -> 3.01 winning seats per game

So "the competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play" was
too strong and is withdrawn. The sharper claim: GROUND's scoring modes
change WHO WINS, not WHETHER THE GROUP SUCCEEDS. And the effect is
seat-band dependent -- 2p none, 4p largest, 6p none under coalitions;
two relation slots capping network growth is a candidate explanation and
is untested.

The panel now prints BOTH policies side by side. That was a correction
mid-task: the first version printed only the new one and I compared it
against a figure remembered from CB-WP-0047 -- a comparison against a
board nobody re-ran.

Control that makes the numbers mean anything: under SHARED GROUND the
two policies agree at all but <=2 decision points across 12 boards, so a
moving column is mode-awareness and not simply a different bot.

Also: two T01 tests keyed on `status: proposed`, which ground-game
renamed to `ready-for-implement` mid-session. They now find the module
by asking resolve() -- the structural property is ours and does not move
when another repo edits its vocabulary.

Also: `make vendor` replaces three hand re-vendors with a tool that
regenerates digests by walking editions/, and reports one-sided files
rather than resolving them.

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

editions/modules/problem_deal/pressure_deck/rules_delta.yaml

@@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
-# module: problem_deal.pressure_deck — PROPOSED
+# module: problem_deal.pressure_deck
+# status: ready-for-implement (v0 rules frozen in MODULE.md)
 module_id: problem_deal.pressure_deck
 aspect: problem_deal
 schema_version: 1
 base: ground-darvo-r0
-status: proposed
-implementation: pending
+status: ready-for-implement
+implementation: pending_kernel
 
 deltas:
   - id: DEAL-START
     name: reduced_initial_deal
     phase: setup
     effect:
-      initial_in_play: [surface, hidden_priority_1]
-      # optional: also priority_2 at 4p+
+      seats_2_3_initial: [surface, hidden_priority_1]
+      seats_4_6_initial: [surface, hidden_priority_1, hidden_priority_2]
       remainder_to: pressure_deck
       pressure_deck_shuffle: deterministic_seeded
 
@@ -21,14 +22,24 @@ deltas:
     phase: round_end
     when:
       pressure_deck_nonempty: true
-      unclaimed_count_lt: open_cap  # open_cap := seats (proposed)
+      unclaimed_count_lt: open_cap
     effect:
+      open_cap: seat_count
       draw_problems: 1
-      place: in_play_face_down_unless_global
+      max_draws_per_end: 1
+      place: face_down_unless_global_scope
+
+  - id: DEAL-OWN
+    name: owner_on_draw
+    phase: on_pressure_draw
+    effect:
+      personal_or_bond_owner: current_lead
+      global_owner: none
 
   - id: DEAL-POINTS
     name: drawn_card_scoring
     phase: data
     effect:
-      drawn_point_value: 0  # v0: stress-only; revisit
-      starter_threshold_unchanged: true
+      drawn_point_value: 0
+      starter_printed_values: unchanged
+      thresholds: unchanged_5_7_9