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too strong and is withdrawn.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>

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
 | 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 |
-| F27 | unplayed | raised | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
+| 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 |
 
 <!-- design-register:end -->
@@ -70,6 +70,35 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
   score. `unplayed` rather than `inert`: the modes score correctly, they
   have simply never faced a seat that wanted to win alone.
 
+  **Re-measured 2026-08-08 with `ObjectivePolicy`** (CB-WP-0049 T03),
+  which plays its seat's own objective. The finding **splits in two**:
+
+  - **Group success does not move.** 34 of 36 cells identical; SCN_03 at
+    4p goes 99→100 in all three modes, which is the SOLVE-by-value
+    refinement and not a mode effect. **Whether the table survives is the
+    same game in all three modes.**
+  - **Who wins does move.** Under BONDED COALITIONS at 4p, winning seats
+    per game go 2.04 → 2.98 (SCN_01/02), 2.12 → 3.29 (SCN_03), 2.05 →
+    3.01 (SCN_04): a seat whose score is its coalition's sum bonds more,
+    and the coalitions get about half again as large. COMMON PROBLEM
+    moves at 6p (1.10 → 1.17).
+
+  So the modes **do** reach decisions — the original claim that they are
+  "scoring lenses over cooperative play" was too strong, and is withdrawn
+  in favour of the sharper one: **GROUND's scoring modes change who wins,
+  not whether the group succeeds.**
+
+  **Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the effect appears and
+  disappears — 2p shows no divergence in any mode, 4p shows the largest,
+  6p shows none under BONDED COALITIONS. A candidate explanation is that
+  two relation slots per seat cap network growth, so at 6p the incentive
+  exists and cannot be acted on; **that is untested** and is the next
+  thing to vary.
+
+  **Still open**, because the part that motivated it is untested: no
+  policy models a *rival* playing their objective, so a competitive mode
+  in which nobody anticipates an opponent remains a weak test of that
+  mode (CB-WP-0049 "Not done here").
 - **F28 — SHARED GROUND's mastery rating counts cards where the mode
   card counts points.** *"All claimed Problem cards form one shared score.
   … For a mastery rating, subtract 1 for each Blame token still in play