CB-WP-0037 done: T03 classification and T04 evidence

Reading Player_Mats.csv and Glossary.csv — which O4 had forbidden
declaring about until they were read — found a rule. Player_Mats'
choice_rule column IS GR-R03: at Stress 4-5 choose ATTACK or GROUND unless
you spend a ready Freedom token. The engine's stress_gated and
allowed_under_stress_gate match it exactly, and now have a tripwire.

So Ornamentation.md gains §1.3: the unit is a column, not a file.
Classifying Player_Mats as ornamentation would have thrown a rule away
with the colour swatches. A mixed artifact is normal — a player mat is a
rule printed on a decorated card in the box too. O4 is rewritten and
re-grounded from provisional to rule accordingly.

O5, O6, O7 declared with falsifiers. O7's is not theoretical:
back_design_id is unread in four vendored files, and hidden information is
what card backs are for.

CB-EV-0029 answers T04's question per rule rather than as a count — yes,
every checkable clause — and states the reading that result does NOT
support: it shows GroundRules.md was a faithful secondary source for the
clauses with behaviour to check, not that the engine is correct.

10 of 19 files vendored. Nine still unread, and Rules_Text.csv is the one
that matters: every clause checked here was checked against our own
transcription of it.

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

evidence/CB-EV-0029-the-fourteen-unread-files.md

@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+# CB-EV-0029 — the fourteen unread files
+
+CB-WP-0037 T04. Tier M (imports more of an external dataset under AM-4's
+budgets; chaos d8 = 1 → no override). **Declaration 9 of chaos window 3.**
+Closed 2026-08-08.
+
+**Delivered:** F18's first reproduction, five more vendored files, the
+engine's rules checked against the edition's for the first time, F24 and
+F25 raised, four ornament declarations, and one spec clause the work
+produced rather than the plan predicting.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Did the engine's rules match the edition's?
+
+**Yes. Every checkable clause, on the first reading.** Stated per rule,
+because a count would hide which ones were checked.
+
+| the edition says | the engine does |
+|---|---|
+| Bond Support: −2 Stress, ready Freedom, **cancel the target's DARVO stage** | −2, `FreedomReadied`, `DarvoEnded` |
+| Bond Attack: +2 and **flip** to Rivalry | +2, `RelationFormed(Rivalry)` |
+| Rivalry Support: −1, **the target chooses** flip or break | −1, `FlipToBond` / `BreakRivalry` |
+| Rivalry Attack: +2 and **break** | +2, `RelationBroken` |
+| no-relation Attack forms a Rivalry **automatically** | forms without consent, both slots free |
+| DARVO ATTACK places Focus **even if the Attack was cancelled** | `FocusPlaced` regardless of the attack's outcome |
+| **remove Focus if the sequence ends before REVERSE** | `focus.remove` on `DarvoEnded` |
+| REVERSE: flip to Blame, +1 target, take a Protection, −2 self | exactly that, with GROUND—ND rejection |
+| GR-R03: at Stress 4–5 only ATTACK or GROUND unless Freedom | `stress_gated` ≥ 4, `allowed_under_stress_gate` |
+
+**The two hardest clauses to notice were already right.** Focus after a
+cancelled Attack, and Focus removed on an early end, are the kind of thing
+a reimplementation drops — and nobody here had read the file they come
+from.
+
+**That is a real result and it is worth resisting the obvious reading.**
+It does not show the engine is correct; it shows `GroundRules.md` was a
+faithful secondary source for the clauses we checked. The clauses we did
+not check are the ones with no behaviour to check against, and they are
+still unread.
+
+## 2. What the reproduction cost, and the error inside it
+
+F18 had sat open with **no artifact** — the only such row — because the
+gap had been hand-counted, never measured.
+
+**Recorded at the accessor, not counted from the source.** A list of
+column names beside the code would be a second copy of a fact the `get`
+calls already carry; grepping the source would over-count, because six
+column names are shared between vendored files, and **over-counting
+coverage understates the gap** — the wrong direction for a measurement
+whose only job is to size it.
+
+**The first version was wrong in this project's signature way.** It
+watched `Table::at` only and reported `visibility`, `required_solution`
+and `point_value` as unread when the engine reads all three through
+`problems_of`'s own index lookups. Correct about the accessor, wrong about
+the engine: **the ADR-0018 family, committed inside the artifact built to
+measure that family.** Problems.csv went 7/13 → 10/13 once the manual
+reader was recorded too.
+
+**Coverage, after this pass** — 10 of 19 files vendored:
+
+| file | read | file | read |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Glossary.csv | 2/2 | Modes.csv | 5/7 |
+| Problems.csv | 10/13 | Tokens.csv | 6/9 |
+| Scenarios.csv | 9/13 | Actions.csv | 4/9 |
+| DARVO.csv | 5/6 | Solutions.csv | 4/8 |
+| Relations.csv | 4/6 | Player_Mats.csv | **1/14** |
+
+**Player_Mats reads one column of fourteen, and that is correct**: §4.
+
+## 3. Two findings, one shape
+
+**F24** — `solution_deck()` builds six of each suit from a Rust array and
+never opens `Solutions.csv`, whose `suit` and `quantity` say the same.
+
+**F25** — `GroundState::threshold` is a `match` returning 5/7/9;
+`Scenarios.csv` carries `threshold_2_players`, `threshold_3_4_players`,
+`threshold_5_6_players`. Setup writes `stress: 2`; the edition says *"All
+players start at Stress 2."* The engine plays five rounds; the edition
+prints a 1–5 track.
+
+**Both agree, and that is the finding rather than the reassurance.** F25's
+numbers are **the most contested in the project** — the whole 4/6/9 versus
+5/7/9 episode, a withdrawal, a ruling and a scenario rewrite turned on
+exactly these — and the engine has been right about them by maintenance
+coincidence rather than by reading the file that owns them.
+
+Filed `inert`, role **`default`**, not `counterexample`: the reproduction
+is green *because* the two agree, which GameDesign §1.3 says to expect
+from a documented provisional choice, and it turns red the moment either
+side moves.
+
+## 4. The clause the work produced
+
+`Player_Mats.csv` looks like pure ornamentation — a symbol, a colour, a
+title for each of six seats. One of its fourteen columns, `choice_rule`,
+**is GR-R03**.
+
+Classifying the file would have thrown a rule away with the colour
+swatches. So `Ornamentation.md` gained §1.3: **the unit is a column, not a
+file**, and a mixed artifact is normal — a player mat is a rule printed on
+a decorated card in the box too.
+
+**This is why O4 was wrong and has been rewritten.** It said nothing could
+be declared about `Player_Mats` or `Glossary` until they were read, and
+assumed both were ornamentation-bearing. Reading them found a rule.
+
+## 5. Tripwires, and why they are not derivations
+
+Every agreement in §1 was established by **a person reading prose**, and
+that reading goes stale in silence when the prose changes.
+
+So each behaviour pins the phrase it was read from. Reword the edition and
+the test goes red **naming the engine branch that depended on it** —
+mutation-proven by rewording *"even if the Attack was cancelled"*.
+
+**It asks for a human rather than re-deriving**, and that is deliberate: a
+rules change absorbed automatically is a rules change nobody decided.
+
+## 6. Cost
+
+`make cost`, not inlined (§Single source of fact). Five files vendored, no
+new dependency, no budget moved.
+
+## Open after this pass
+
+- **Nine files still unread**, and `Rules_Text.csv` (21 sections) is the
+  one that matters: it is the rules themselves, and every clause in §1 was
+  checked against `GroundRules.md`, our transcription of them.
+- **`resolution_order`, `target` and `stress_restriction`** are unread in
+  `Actions.csv` and look like rules. **Nothing in §1 covers them.**
+- **F17** waits on ground-game's maintainer, not on us.
+- **F24 and F25 are guarded, not fixed.** The literals are still literals.