coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
Details

Browse source 
ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as
the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional
scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0
of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two
days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is
what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four
other things.

That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it
appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that
was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an
unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied
ruling looks exactly like work in progress.

Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones
verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's
consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by
ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed.
Register queue 9 -> 0.

T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered,
nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our
own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game.

I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts
consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it
exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible
from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth
instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item
is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims --
and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when
two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a
claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have
provisional scenarios" stand.

Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken
the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing
their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item
to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a
diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project
should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row
from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to
its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it
is no longer a reporting tool.

ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until
declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd
encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing.

DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the
loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's
substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but
the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named
itself.

make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-05 16:13:37 +02:00
parent b1f4a85a4a
commit 6be9fbc9af
15 changed files with 797 additions and 138 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

138
specs/FindingRegister.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,138 @@
# The finding register
Design findings about **GROUND**, with their reproductions. Governed by
[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
and [ADR-0012](../decisions/ADR-0012-the-design-instrument.md). Reported
by `make design`.
**Split out of `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` on 2026-08-05** when that
file crossed the ~400-line loadability limit. ADR-0012 D2 said *"no new
file"* and this is a new file — but D2's substance was **one register, not
a second mechanism competing with the first**, and that holds: this *is*
§Underdetermined's register, moved, still driving off the same
`provisional`/ruling machinery. D2 also named the awkwardness this
resolves — a finding about the engine sitting in a document about the
game.
The U-items themselves, with their defaults and rulings, stay in
[`GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`](GroundRules.md); this file tracks them
*as findings*.
**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 | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U2 | underdetermined | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U3 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U4 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U5 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U6 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U7 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U8 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U9 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U10 | underdetermined | applied | — | 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.
### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice
**One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six
of ten did.
CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong
ones before checking them**:
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. |
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. |
Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on
reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this
exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what
the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game.
So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing.
**Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.**
They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came
off, not because anything demonstrates them.
### 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.

137
specs/GroundRules.md
View file

@ -221,151 +221,82 @@ 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`.
Moved to [`FindingRegister.md`](FindingRegister.md) on 2026-08-05 — this
file crossed the loadability limit. The U-items below are its
`underdetermined` rows; `make design` reports over it.
<!-- design-register:begin -->
## Underdetermined in dataset 0.1 — RULED 2026-08-03, applied 2026-08-05
| 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 |
**Owner: ground-game. Raised: 2026-07-31. Ruled 2026-08-03**
(GROUND-WP-0002 T05): **all ten confirmed** as the defaults clay-borg
already simulates. Applied here 2026-08-05 (CB-WP-0026).
<!-- design-register:end -->
**Nothing below awaits a ruling.** The defaults are now the rules for
dataset 0.1, and the `provisional: true` flags they carried have been
lifted — a flag that outlives its question is a lie with a timestamp.
- **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.
**No kernel behaviour changed**, because every ruling was a confirmation.
What changed is that these stopped being our guesses.
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
> **Three rulings carry more than "confirm", quoted rather than
> paraphrased.** **U1**: the Bond formed by *this* Support still does not
> cancel DARVO (printed designer note — this is what GR-L05 encodes).
> **U2**: clamp on every application, but **DARVO still arms only at End**
> when at Stress 5 (GR-R08) — the clamping rule and the trigger rule are
> separate. **U8**: GROUND—OU applies first and **Protection is consumed
> only if it actually cancels**.
>
> ground-game flagged **U2, U6 and U8** as the three that change play,
> because each decides whether a DARVO stage fires at all.
**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
and a raise date so its age is visible; `make coverage` reports both and
warns past 30 days. CI **warns rather than breaks** — the ruling belongs
to ground-game and the kernel cannot make it for them — but every evidence
file that depends on one must list it (CB-WP-0003 T08).
A ruling flips the *scenario*, not the kernel: the default is encoded in a
scenario tagged `provisional: true`, so a correction is a data change.
Formalization exposed points the dataset does not decide. Simulation uses
the stated default; each is tagged in scenarios that depend on it and must
be confirmed or corrected by ground-game.
Formalization exposed points the dataset did not decide. Each is stated
with its default and the ruling that settled it.
- **U1 Bond acceptance timing (GR-L02):** when does the target "accept"?
Default: a decision point during the Support resolution, target decides
with full knowledge of revealed Actions.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Target accepts during Support resolution, with full knowledge of revealed Actions. A Bond formed by *this* Support still does not cancel DARVO (printed designer note; GR-L05).
- **U2 Stress clamping during resolution (GR-F01):** dataset caps Stress
at End; mats physically cap at 0–5. Default: clamp on every
application (no intermediate values above 5/below 0). Note this
interacts with DARVO triggering (a mid-round spike to 5 that is reduced
again before End does not trigger).
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Clamp Stress to 0–5 on **every** application; matches the physical mats. DARVO still arms **only at End** when at Stress 5 (GR-R08).
- **U3 DENY with no legal target (GR-D03):** if no face-up unsolved
unprotected Problem exists, default: the stage resolves as a no-op and
the sequence still advances.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No-op; the sequence still advances.
- **U4 Solution deck exhaustion (GR-A01):** default: reshuffle the discard
into a new deck deterministically; if both are empty, the draw is
skipped.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Deterministic reshuffle of the discard into a new deck; if both are empty, skip the draw.
- **U5 Rejected REVERSE — self-effects (GR-D05):** the Actions sheet says
GROUND—ND "rejects one Reverse"; the DARVO sheet orders the −2
self-Stress after the flip/+1/Protection block. Default: rejection
cancels the effects on the target (no Blame, no +1) **and** the
Protection gain, but the sequence owner still takes −2 Stress and the
sequence still ends; the Focus token returns unflipped.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Rejection cancels the target effects (no Blame, no +1, no Protection) **and** the owner still takes −2 Stress and the sequence ends.
- **U6 Simultaneous Bond-Support and stage cancellation (GR-A04, GR-R06):**
Support (step 2) resolves before DARVO stages (step 3), so a Bond
Support in the same round cancels that round's stage before it fires.
Stated as the intended reading; confirm.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** A pre-existing Bond Support (step 2) cancels that round's DARVO stage before it fires (step 3) and ends the sequence.
- **U7 Focus target elimination:** dataset has no player elimination, so
no rule needed; confirm none exists.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No player elimination.
- **U8 Multiple Attack cancellation sources (GR-A09):** if both Protection
and GROUND—OU could cancel the same Attack, default: GROUND—OU (chosen
at step 1) applies first; Protection is consumed only if it actually
cancels.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** GROUND—OU applies first; Protection is consumed **only if it actually cancels**.
- **U9 Two players at Stress 5 at the same End (GR-R08):** both trigger;
their stages resolve in Lead order in later rounds. No interaction rule
needed; confirm.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Both trigger; later stages resolve in Lead order. No extra interaction rule.
- **U10 Hand limits:** none stated. Default: no hand limit.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No hand limit in r0. Revisit only if playtest shows bloat.
## Scenario coverage obligation
Every GR-rule above must be covered by ≥1 scenario under