CB-WP-0022 T03: ADR-0012 -- the register already existed, and the rule was

one clause short

Nine decisions. Two were not on T03's list; both are the review's.

D2: specs/GroundRules.md §Underdetermined IS the register. C4 pointed out
it was never evaluated as a candidate, and against the survey's own five
benchmarks it already delivers four -- including the Magic Oracle property
("a ruling flips the scenario, not the kernel", :231-233) that the survey
travelled to Magic to discover and we had written down ourselves eight
days earlier. What it lacks is reproductions. So this pass extends a
section rather than building a register: no new file, no new schema, and
no second mechanism to disagree with the first.

D3: admissibility is three clauses. It exists; it has the ruled shape
(GROUND-WP-0004 T02's row-level table, never a sum -- promoted from a T04
addendum because two of three wrong premises were sums without tables);
and it CAN FAIL. The third is C1's. GR-E01's scenario went green when the
edition landed, and the finding stayed admissible and stayed queued for
transmission, because nothing in the rule said a passing artifact was a
signal. A green reproduction is an alarm, not a reassurance.

D1 applied: INTENT gains a fourth property, Instrument, worded as a
mechanism rather than an ambition and carrying its own falsifier -- if a
pass tolerates an undecided rule by quietly picking a default, the
property is false.

D4 five kinds, each forced by an existing finding; a sixth during backfill
means the taxonomy was invented. D5 lifecycle where `applied` means the
source changed, the queue empties while the log accumulates, and
withdrawals are reported rather than deleted -- GR-E01 is why. D6 notes
admitted but never reportable, 30-day expiry on the existing age
machinery; refusing them would discard the only class of finding the
engine cannot produce itself, which is CB-WP-0025's whole input. D7 no
engine-evolution register, on an inventory C5 corrected -- narrowed, not
settled. D8 design-baseline.py retired, kept as a dated snapshot because
deleting it erases the evidence for how 33% got in. D9 the artifact stays
here, ground-game gets a generated file under its own workplan.

loop-lint: no findings. facts-check: no findings.

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

INTENT.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ assimilates and optimizes techniques and implementations useful for games,
 simulations, and robotics.
 
 It is not another monolithic game engine. It is a capability-assimilating
-development engine with three distinct properties:
+development engine with four distinct properties:
 
 1. **Clay** — its canonical models, contracts, rules, and tools remain malleable.
 2. **Borg** — mature, optimized libraries are assimilated behind controlled
@@ -13,6 +13,14 @@ development engine with three distinct properties:
 3. **Product-driven evolution** — abstractions are extracted from working
    games, beginning with **GROUND — A Game of Bonds and Rivalry: DARVO
    Edition**, rather than invented in isolation.
+4. **Instrument** — the engine is rigorous enough that it cannot proceed
+   past a rule that does not decide. What it cannot execute, it reports:
+   findings about the *game's* design are a product of building the
+   simulator, not a side activity, and they are carried back to the game's
+   owner with the artifact that produced them. *(ADR-0012. A restatement of
+   what has already happened six times, made a duty. If a pass ever
+   tolerates an undecided rule by quietly picking a default and not raising
+   it, this property is false.)*
 
 The central rule: