CB-WP-0022 T05/T06/T07: the register, and what its first run found

T05. tools/design.py, make design, and the register in GroundRules.md --
14 rows, no new file, because ADR-0012 D2 made §Underdetermined the
register rather than building one beside it.

Backfill was the test and it caught two things the ADR did not have.

First, a `role` column. The first report alarmed on U2 and was wrong to:
U2's scenario is green BECAUSE the provisional default it documents is
implemented, which says nothing about whether ground-game agrees. GR-E01's
was a counterexample that went green. Same colour, opposite meaning -- a
register that cannot tell them apart either alarms constantly or never.
Only a green counterexample alarms. Folded back into GameDesign §1.3.

Second, it contradicted the survey. CB-RES-0007 said "six of the ten
already have provisional scenarios." Measured -- grep -lE "\bU<n>\b" over
scenarios/ground -- exactly ONE U-item names itself. Five provisional
scenarios exist and four probably encode U-item defaults, but the mapping
is not written down, so it is not checkable. Same defect class as the
wrong premises, found inside the survey that proposed the fix. Now a
reported debt: open, lacking a reproduction: 9, target 0.

design.py carries the control design-baseline.py never had, asserted
directly: a row citing a nonexistent file must not count as reproduced,
using the exact path 2da19a4 deleted -- which the old tool called green.
design-baseline.py is marked superseded rather than deleted; it is the
evidence for how a wrong number got into a survey.

T06. The report is a FILE in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0002, committed
there, with a hub message that only points at it. It asks for no ruling:
it carries GR-E01's withdrawal, our reproduction debt, and two notes that
are explicitly not findings.

And it had to acknowledge something nobody anticipated. GROUND-WP-0002 is
finished -- all ten U-items were RULED 2026-08-03, every one confirmed as
the default we simulate, plus five of six provisional scenarios. The
survey said "0 of 10 ruled" two days later and this register was built
saying `reported`. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the
opposite direction: they answered and we did not collect it. The
instrument's first run surfaced it. They are `ruled`, not `applied` --
lifting the now-settled provisional flags is owed and is not done, and
make design shows them open until it is.

T07. evidence/CB-EV-0021. Two of six catches in this pass came from
execution rather than process (the role distinction from building it, the
ten uncollected rulings from running it), which is InnerLoop §Design
goal's prediction holding.

make self-tests, facts-check, loop-lint: clean.

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

specs/GameDesign.md

@@ -61,6 +61,20 @@ The artifact must be capable of going red, and the register records its
 finding** — it is a finding whose claim is now in question, and §4 reports
 it as needing resolution to `applied` or `withdrawn`.
 
+**A reproduction has a `role`, and only one of them alarms.** This
+distinction was not in ADR-0012; **T05's backfill produced it**, when the
+first report cried wolf over U2.
+
+| role | what it is | green means |
+|---|---|---|
+| `counterexample` | demonstrates the defect — the model-checker shape | **alarm.** It should be red while the finding is open |
+| `default` | encodes a provisional choice so it is testable and visible | **expected.** It passes because our default is implemented, which says nothing about whether the owner agrees |
+
+U2's scenario is green because the default it documents is implemented.
+GR-E01's was a counterexample that went green when the edition landed, and
+sat that way for four days. **Same colour, opposite meaning** — a register
+that cannot tell them apart either alarms constantly or never.
+
 **Rationale, and it is the expensive one.** `gr-e01-threshold-…-2p.yaml`
 went green when the edition landed on 2026-08-04. The finding remained
 admissible, remained in the register, and remained queued for transmission

specs/GroundRules.md

@@ -219,6 +219,103 @@ terms.
 
 ---
 
+## The finding register
+
+**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
+register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
+five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
+kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
+`make design`.
+
+<!-- design-register:begin -->
+
+| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| U1 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U2 | underdetermined | ruled | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U3 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U4 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U5 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U6 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U7 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U8 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U9 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| U10 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
+| 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 |
+
+<!-- design-register:end -->
+
+- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
+  Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
+  GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
+  rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
+  case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
+  maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
+- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
+  scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
+  degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
+  one exists.
+- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
+  against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
+  against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
+  `-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
+  is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
+  and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
+- **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.
+
+### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
+
+**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
+ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
+already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
+provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
+`finished`.
+
+CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
+`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
+answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
+unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
+
+**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
+Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
+default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
+not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
+that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
+what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
+until it is.
+
+### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
+
+**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
+
+```
+for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
+```
+
+CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
+scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
+it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
+mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
+uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
+records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
+
+**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
+findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
+as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
+scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
+their own.
+
+**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
+§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
+existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
+reported metric with a target of zero.
+
 ## Underdetermined in dataset 0.1 — PROVISIONAL defaults (flag to ground-game)
 
 **Owner: ground-game. Raised: 2026-07-31.** Every U-item carries an owner