CB-WP-0028 T04-T07: a game you solve, rankings that cite their source, and
a feature deliberately not built T04 BUILT NOTHING, WHICH IS THE CORRECT OUTCOME. "Click the draw stack to get hand cards" is not a legal move: GroundCommand has no standalone draw, and the edition's own INVESTIGATE text settles it -- "Choose one hidden, non-Denied Problem and reveal it. THEN DRAW ONE SOLUTION." Drawing is a consequence, never an action. Implementing click-to-draw would have invented a rule, which is what CB-WP-0023 exists to stop. And observation 5 is already true: drawing is ALREADY automatic, inside INVESTIGATE, with no player input. An auto-draw option was asked for a thing that has never been manual. Both observations have one root cause and T02 fixed it. The maintainer expected to take cards from the deck because NOTHING ON THE PAGE SAID HOW DRAWING WORKS -- the INVESTIGATE card's own text was in a file we had not imported. No finding raised: a player's instinct differing from a legible rule is a comprehension gap, not a rules gap. Whether the instinct recurs now that the text is present is a testable question and was not before. T06: "game solved" on a win, "game over" on a loss, "the game stopped" with no outcome. Asserted all three ways, because a test checking only the win case passes for a page that always says solved. More than tone -- GROUND is co-operative and about repairing something, and arcade failure-state vocabulary for a win tells a player the wrong thing about what they just did. T05: the ending page gets the table's two-column shape. Result left; rankings, controls and the full log right. The seal still removes every control wherever they now live. T07's interesting decision was NOT TO RANK. Modes.csv defines scoring_tiebreak per mode, so ordering is the GAME's where one exists -- "Lower combined Stress, then fewer Blame tokens" for coalitions. For SHARED GROUND it says "Not applicable", because the table succeeds or fails together. So co-op shows contributions and refuses to order them, and says why. Drawing a leaderboard because a leaderboard is easy would invent scoring the rules do not have. The one derived superlative is labelled "clay-borg's reading, not a rule" and appears only where the mode ranks; ties are shown as ties. 52 render tests pass. check clean, loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
4b5b601ce0
commit
4d3e30eda4
3 changed files with 275 additions and 9 deletions
|
|
@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ as a circle and once as a row. **One table, not two diagrams.**
|
|||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: CB-WP-0028-T04
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "1106c60e-112b-401f-b854-eeec566ef3d1"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -234,11 +234,38 @@ because SOLVE was offered where it could not act.
|
|||
the same seed produces the same end-state hash, or it is not automation
|
||||
but a rules change.
|
||||
|
||||
**Done 2026-08-06 — and NOTHING WAS BUILT, which is the correct outcome.**
|
||||
|
||||
**Clicking the deck is not a legal move.** `GroundCommand` has no
|
||||
standalone draw, and the edition's own INVESTIGATE text settles it:
|
||||
|
||||
> *"Choose one hidden, non-Denied Problem and reveal it. **Then draw one
|
||||
> Solution.** If no hidden Problems remain, draw one Solution only."*
|
||||
|
||||
Drawing is a **consequence** of INVESTIGATE, never an action. Implementing
|
||||
a click-to-draw would have invented a rule — which is what CB-WP-0023
|
||||
exists to stop.
|
||||
|
||||
**And observation 5 is already true.** Drawing is *already* automatic: it
|
||||
happens inside INVESTIGATE with no player input at all. The maintainer
|
||||
asked for an auto-draw option for a thing that has never been manual.
|
||||
|
||||
**Both observations have the same root cause, and T02 fixed it.** He
|
||||
expected to take cards from the deck because **nothing on the page said
|
||||
how drawing works** — the INVESTIGATE card's own text was in a file we had
|
||||
not imported. It now reads on the card.
|
||||
|
||||
**No finding raised.** The rules are clear and were simply not visible; a
|
||||
player's instinct differing from a legible rule is a comprehension gap,
|
||||
not a rules gap. Worth ground-game knowing as design feedback if the
|
||||
instinct recurs with the text present — **which is now a testable
|
||||
question and was not before.**
|
||||
|
||||
## Task: the meta column takes the controls and the log
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: CB-WP-0028-T05
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "6c78e44e-38fc-451b-b1a0-205b1d079ca0"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -256,11 +283,16 @@ not for the ending page.
|
|||
- the ending page's existing tests pass unchanged or the change is a
|
||||
regression.
|
||||
|
||||
**Done 2026-08-06.** The ending page gets the table's two-column shape:
|
||||
result on the left, rankings + controls + the full log on the right. The
|
||||
seal still removes every control wherever it now lives, and the existing
|
||||
ending tests passed unchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
## Task: a game you solve
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: CB-WP-0028-T06
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "df0a967e-636b-4fe5-9926-4d73030a87d7"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -280,11 +312,16 @@ win tells the player the wrong thing about what they just did.
|
|||
- the no-outcome case (a game that ended badly) keeps its own wording and
|
||||
claims neither.
|
||||
|
||||
**Done 2026-08-06.** `game solved` on a win, `game over` on a loss, **the
|
||||
game stopped** when there is no outcome — asserted all three ways, because
|
||||
a test checking only the win case passes for a page that always says
|
||||
"solved".
|
||||
|
||||
## Task: who did what — rankings that are not invented
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
id: CB-WP-0028-T07
|
||||
status: todo
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "ad6e6f6f-e531-494c-b8a9-18dfdd14681c"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
|
@ -311,6 +348,23 @@ silently canonised.
|
|||
- a ranking that no seat leads (nobody solved anything) renders as that,
|
||||
not as an empty list.
|
||||
|
||||
**Done 2026-08-06, and the interesting decision was not to rank.**
|
||||
|
||||
`Modes.csv` gives `scoring_tiebreak` per mode, so the ordering is **the
|
||||
game's own** where it defines one — *"Lower combined Stress, then fewer
|
||||
Blame tokens"* for coalitions. **For SHARED GROUND it says "Not
|
||||
applicable"**, because the table succeeds or fails together.
|
||||
|
||||
So in co-op the page shows **contributions and refuses to order them**,
|
||||
and says why. Drawing a leaderboard because a leaderboard is easy would
|
||||
have invented scoring the rules do not have — the same defect as
|
||||
canonising a provisional default.
|
||||
|
||||
Facts the game counts (Problems claimed, personal score, Stress, Blame)
|
||||
are shown plainly. The one derived superlative is labelled **"clay-borg's
|
||||
reading, not a rule"** and appears only where the mode ranks at all. Ties
|
||||
are shown as ties.
|
||||
|
||||
## Task: evidence
|
||||
|
||||
```task
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue