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design-baseline.py is marked superseded rather than deleted; it is the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