CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied

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>

workplans/CB-WP-0026-collect-the-rulings.md

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+---
+id: CB-WP-0026
+kind: product
+title: "Collect the rulings: ten answers that arrived and were never applied"
+status: done
+---
+
+# Purpose
+
+```
+structural tier  S   (applies rulings inside an existing capability —
+                      scenario data and a spec section, no new port, no
+                      canonical interface, no dependency)
+chaos            d8 = 6  → no override
+declared tier    S
+```
+
+Declaration 9 of chaos window 2.
+
+## The register's first run found this, which is the only reason it exists
+
+`ground-game` **ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03** (GROUND-WP-0002 T05)
+and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios (T03). Every U-item was
+**confirmed** as the default clay-borg already simulates. The workplan is
+`finished`.
+
+**clay-borg never collected the answers.** CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10
+ruled"* on 2026-08-03 — the same day — and CB-WP-0022 built the finding
+register two days later still recording them as `reported`. It took
+`make design`'s first run to notice.
+
+**This is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction.**
+The whole design-instrument pass was shaped around *we send findings and
+nobody reads them*. The symmetric failure — *they answer and we do not
+collect it* — was not anticipated by the declaration, the survey, or the
+adversarial review.
+
+**Nothing here is a rules decision.** Every ruling is already made. This is
+clay-borg applying them, which is the `ruled` → `applied` transition
+ADR-0012 D5 defines: *the source changed and the provisional default was
+deleted.*
+
+## Why the rulings being "confirm" makes this more subtle, not less
+
+Every U-item was confirmed, so **no kernel behaviour changes**. It is
+tempting to conclude nothing needs doing.
+
+That is wrong, and the register is what makes it visible: the scenarios
+still carry `provisional: true` for choices that are now **settled**. A
+provisional flag means *we picked this and the owner has not ruled*. After
+2026-08-03 that statement is false in five files, and `make coverage`
+keeps ageing them toward a 30-day warning for a question that has been
+answered.
+
+**A flag that outlives its question is the same defect as a hash that
+outlives its content** — ADR-0011's *"a lie with a timestamp."*
+
+## Task: record the rulings where the defaults live
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0026-T01
+status: done
+priority: high
+```
+
+`specs/GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` states ten defaults as *"must be
+confirmed or corrected by ground-game."* All ten now are. Each U-item
+gains its ruling and the date, from GROUND-WP-0002 T05.
+
+**Quote the ruling, do not paraphrase it.** Three carry notes that are
+more than "confirm" and a paraphrase would lose them:
+
+- **U1** — the Bond formed by *this* Support still does not cancel DARVO
+  (a printed designer note, and it is the interaction 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, and conflating them is the obvious misreading;
+- **U8** — GROUND—OU applies first and **Protection is consumed only if it
+  actually cancels**.
+
+**Controls:**
+- the §Underdetermined preamble no longer says the items await a ruling —
+  it is the sentence that will otherwise be true-looking and wrong;
+- **U2, U6 and U8 are the ones ground-game flagged as changing play.**
+  Each must be checkable against the kernel behaviour it describes, or the
+  record says a rule is implemented that may not be.
+
+**Done 2026-08-05.** All ten rulings quoted into `§Underdetermined`, with
+the three conditional ones (U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger,
+U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels) verbatim. The section heading and
+preamble no longer say the items await a ruling.
+
+## Task: lift the provisional flags the rulings settle
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0026-T02
+status: done
+priority: high
+```
+
+Five scenarios carry `provisional: true` with `provisional_owner:
+ground-game`: `gr-a04-bond-support`, `gr-d01-darvo-trigger`,
+`gr-d05-darvo-reverse`, `gr-e02-shared-ground`, `gr-e04-coalitions`. All
+five were **confirmed** on 2026-08-03. The flag comes off, and each
+records which ruling settled it.
+
+**Do not delete the provenance with the flag.** CB-WP-0021 T03 is the
+precedent: `gr-e01` was *rewritten, not retired*, because a reader needs
+to learn the question was answered rather than that a tag vanished.
+
+**Controls:**
+- `make coverage` reports **0 provisional items** afterwards, and that is
+  the measurable outcome of this task;
+- `make sim` still passes — a confirmed default is the behaviour already
+  implemented, so a red scenario here means the default was **not** what
+  we told ground-game it was, which is a finding and must be raised, not
+  patched;
+- the ruling date survives in each file.
+
+**Done 2026-08-05.** All five flags lifted; `make coverage` reports **0
+provisional items**. Each file gained `ruled` / `ruled_by` / `ruled_note`
+instead — the flag came off, the provenance did not.
+
+**The schema refused the new fields and was right to.** `ScenarioFile` is
+`deny_unknown_fields`, so five scenarios failed to parse until `ruled`,
+`ruled_by`, `ruled_note` and `encodes_u_item` were declared. A scenario
+corpus that silently accepted unknown metadata would let a typo'd
+`encodes_u_iem` sit there claiming nothing.
+
+**T02's control held: `make sim` is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, with no
+scenario red.** That is the answer to the serious version of this task —
+had one gone red, it would have meant we described our own behaviour
+incorrectly to ground-game, which would be a defect in *our* report rather
+than in their ruling.
+
+## Task: make the U-item ↔ scenario mapping checkable
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0026-T03
+status: done
+priority: high
+```
+
+**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured in CB-WP-0022 T05:
+
+```
+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."* Four probably do — but **the link is not written down, so it
+is not checkable**, and an uncheckable link asserted as a fact is the
+defect class that produced three wrong premises.
+
+Each scenario that encodes a U-item default names it. Where no scenario
+covers a U-item, **say so** rather than inventing a mapping — that is the
+honest half, and guessing here would reproduce exactly the error being
+fixed.
+
+**Controls:**
+- a check that every U-item claiming a reproduction resolves to a file
+  that **names it** — `design.py`'s self-test already asserts the current
+  state (`cited == ["U2"]`) and must be updated to the new truth, not
+  deleted;
+- the register's reproduction column matches the mapping, since a register
+  that disagrees with the files is worse than none.
+
+**Done 2026-08-05, and it caught me writing the same defect a third and
+fourth time.**
+
+I wrote two mappings from the `covers:` lists — `gr-a04` → U1, `gr-d05` →
+U5 — and both are wrong on reading what the scenarios actually exercise:
+
+| claimed | why withdrawn |
+|---|---|
+| `gr-a04` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts |
+| `gr-d05` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND) |
+
+Both were plausible from `covers:` and neither survived reading the
+description. **The measurement stands: one U-item, U2.** Nine have no
+reproduction and are recorded as having none.
+
+`encodes_u_item` is now a declaration, and `design.py` asserts a scenario
+naming a U-item actually contains it. **The check's first version was
+itself the loose proxy**: it grepped for `\bU<n>\b` and went red when two
+files recorded *why they do not* encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a
+claim — and that is exactly the looseness that let *"six of the ten have
+provisional scenarios"* stand unchallenged.
+
+## Task: close the register, and see whether it closes
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0026-T04
+status: done
+priority: high
+```
+
+Move U1–U10 from `ruled` to `applied` and re-run `make design`.
+
+**The number to beat is `open, lacking a reproduction: 9 → 0`**, and the
+queue emptying is the first evidence that ADR-0012 D5's lifecycle is real
+rather than drawn.
+
+**If it does not reach 0, do not adjust the metric.** Whatever remains is
+either a U-item with no scenario (T03's honest half, which should then be
+a `note`, not a finding) or a state the lifecycle cannot express — and the
+second is a finding about ADR-0012 that belongs in evidence.
+
+**Controls:**
+- `make design` shows an empty queue for the U-items, with the log
+  carrying all ten;
+- `make self-tests` and `make sim` pass;
+- **the closure is checkable from the register alone** — a reader should
+  not need this workplan to see that ten findings closed on 2026-08-03 and
+  were applied on 2026-08-05.
+
+**Done 2026-08-05. The queue is empty.**
+
+```
+QUEUE (open findings)      (none)
+open, lacking a reproduction   0   target 0
+closed (log)                  12   [U1..U10, F11, F13]
+with a resolving reproduction 3/12 = 25%
+```
+
+**`open, lacking a reproduction: 9 → 0`** — the number this task named.
+It is the first evidence that ADR-0012 D5's lifecycle is real rather than
+drawn: findings entered a state, moved through it, and left the queue.
+
+**25% reproduced is not a failure and must not be read as one.** Nine
+U-items closed by a *ruling*, and a ruling is not an artifact. The metric
+is now honest about a thing the survey's 33% concealed: most of our
+findings closed because someone answered them, not because anything
+demonstrated them.
+
+## Task: evidence
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0026-T05
+status: done
+priority: medium
+```
+
+`evidence/CB-EV-0022-*.md`. Short — this is an S pass.
+
+- **How long the answers sat uncollected**, and what noticed them. Two
+  days, and the thing that noticed was the register's first run, not a
+  human and not the review.
+- **Whether any confirmed default turned out not to match the kernel** —
+  T02's control. A red scenario here would mean we described our own
+  behaviour incorrectly to ground-game, which would be a fourth premise
+  defect and the most serious kind, since it was *our* behaviour.
+- **What the mapping gap really was**: whether the four unlinked scenarios
+  encode U-item defaults at all, or whether CB-RES-0007's "six of ten" was
+  simply wrong.
+- **Whether the queue reached 0**, and if not, what the lifecycle could not
+  express.
+- **Quote CB-WP-0022's cost by re-running the instrument** — and note that
+  CB-EV-0019 §4 found this chain snaps at roughly four passes, so if the
+  instrument aborts, that is the second instance and the rule needs its
+  bound.
+
+**Done 2026-08-05.**
+[CB-EV-0022](../evidence/CB-EV-0022-collect-the-rulings.md).
+
+- **Two days uncollected, and the register's first run is what noticed** —
+  not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things.
+- **No confirmed default failed to match the kernel**: `make sim` 26
+  passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. The serious version of this task
+  came back clean.
+- **The mapping gap was not under-documentation, it was error.** At least
+  two of the four unlinked scenarios do **not** encode the U-items the
+  survey implied, and I wrote both wrong mappings before checking them.
+- **The queue reached 0.** `applied` conflates *confirmed* with
+  *overturned*, which is the lifecycle gap this pass found and did not fix.
+- **The cost chain held this time** — CB-WP-0022 is one pass back and
+  still in the window. The bound CB-EV-0019 asked for is still owed.
+
+**A gate went red for the best possible reason.** `rule-coverage.py`'s
+positive control required `bool(prov)` — at least one provisional item to
+exist. Lifting the last five turned it red. The guard was the right
+instinct (a vacuous pass is worthless) wired the wrong way: it bound a
+control to live repo data. It now builds its own fixture, asserts the
+missing-owner case is *caught*, and reports the live count as a diagnostic
+— because there is no number of provisional items this project should
+have.