Apply ground-game's rulings: mastery in points, four boards, and a

vendor tool that covers what the gate checks

They ruled on all seven items the same day. Two were actionable here.

F28 RULED: points. Modes.csv MODE_COOP clarified upstream to say
"penalties apply to points, not card count"; mastery is now
total - blame - denied. A recorded scenario went red on it --
gr-e02-shared-ground pinned 0 (2 claimed CARDS - 1 - 1) and now expects
2 (4 POINTS - 1 - 1). The number moved because the rule was decided, not
because the engine drifted, and the scenario records both rulings; its
schema has no field for a second one, so both live in ruled_note with
`ruled` carrying the LATEST date.

F29 RULED not-intended and APPLIED upstream: SCN_02's suits re-tuned the
same day. The characterisation test is how we found out -- it pinned the
duplication, went red on the re-tune, and that red WAS the notification.
It now asserts every pair distinct, the stronger statement the
duplication had made unavailable. SCN_02 re-measures at 73 at 2p, not
67: its own board now.

F26/F30 ruled and recorded. F30's ruling incidentally confirms our
reading -- they name priority-2's suit as the first lever, which is the
difference we identified without having measured causation.

vendor-editions grew twice, both times because it covered less than the
gate it exists to satisfy:

  - It refused to touch ground-darvo-r0/ on the reasoning that the
    baseline is "a separate record". That was wrong within the hour:
    ground-game clarified Modes.csv and `make vendor` reported a clean
    sync while edition-check went red. A sync tool that covers less than
    its check reports success into a red gate.
  - Its two-block rewrite DETECTED which fence held which set and
    preserved the arrangement -- faithfully preserving a swap an earlier
    write had introduced, leaving each fence under a heading describing
    the other. edition-check reads every sha256 line flat and passed
    throughout: a document can be self-consistently wrong and green.
    Order is now asserted, with a control that goes red on a swap.

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

games/ground/src/edition.rs

@@ -1056,16 +1056,20 @@ mod card_text_tests {
         }
     }
 
-    /// **Two of the four scenarios are the same board** (CB-WP-0047).
+    /// **The four scenarios are four boards** (F29).
     ///
-    /// SCN_01 and SCN_02 have identical suit-and-value profiles at every
-    /// priority, so they play identically and differ only in prose. Not
-    /// a defect — a designed reskin is a legitimate choice — but it is a
-    /// fact about what "four scenarios" buys, and measuring them as four
-    /// independent boards would be measuring two of them twice.
+    /// They were not. SCN_01 and SCN_02 had identical suit-and-value
+    /// profiles at every priority — they played identically and differed
+    /// only in prose, so "four scenarios" bought three boards.
     ///
-    /// This is a **characterisation** test: it pins what is true today so
-    /// that a change to either deck is a decision rather than a drift.
+    /// Reported as F29; ground-game ruled it **unintended** and re-tuned
+    /// SCN_02's suits the same day. **This test is how we found out**: it
+    /// was a characterisation pinning the duplication, it went red on the
+    /// re-tune, and that red was the notification, not a defect.
+    ///
+    /// It now asserts the property that should hold from here — every
+    /// pair distinct — which is the stronger statement the duplication
+    /// had made unavailable.
     #[test]
     fn which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct() {
         let profile = |id: &str| -> Vec<(u8, String, u8)> {
@@ -1077,24 +1081,17 @@ mod card_text_tests {
             v.sort();
             v
         };
-        assert_eq!(
-            profile("SCN_01"),
-            profile("SCN_02"),
-            "SCN_01 and SCN_02 diverged — they were identical boards; \
-             if this is intended, the panel now measures four real boards"
-        );
-        for pair in [
-            ("SCN_01", "SCN_03"),
-            ("SCN_01", "SCN_04"),
-            ("SCN_03", "SCN_04"),
-        ] {
-            assert_ne!(
-                profile(pair.0),
-                profile(pair.1),
-                "{} and {} became the same board",
-                pair.0,
-                pair.1
-            );
+        let ids = ["SCN_01", "SCN_02", "SCN_03", "SCN_04"];
+        for (i, a) in ids.iter().enumerate() {
+            for b in &ids[i + 1..] {
+                assert_ne!(
+                    profile(a),
+                    profile(b),
+                    "{a} and {b} are the same board — four scenarios must be \
+                     four boards, or a panel treating them as independent \
+                     samples counts one of them twice"
+                );
+            }
         }
     }
 

games/ground/src/lib.rs

@@ -1880,12 +1880,18 @@ impl GroundState {
                     .map(|p| p.blame_from.len() as i32)
                     .sum();
                 let denied = self.problems.values().filter(|p| p.denied).count() as i32;
-                let claimed = self
-                    .problems
-                    .values()
-                    .filter(|p| p.claimed_by.is_some())
-                    .count() as i32;
-                let mastery = claimed - blame - denied;
+                // **Points, not card count** — F28, ruled by ground-game
+                // 2026-08-08 and clarified in `Modes.csv`: *"start from
+                // that shared point total and subtract 1 point for each
+                // Blame token still in play and 1 point for each Denied
+                // Problem (penalties apply to points, not card count)."*
+                //
+                // This counted CLAIMED CARDS. Both readings fit the
+                // sentence as it stood, and they differ on every game
+                // where a 3-point Problem is claimed — which is most of
+                // them. Reported rather than guessed; the card is the
+                // authority (ADR-0015) and it now says so outright.
+                let mastery = total as i32 - blame - denied;
                 let winners = if group_success {
                     self.players.keys().copied().collect()
                 } else {
@@ -3552,7 +3558,7 @@ mod tests {
     /// does today and shows the size of the disagreement, so the ruling
     /// has a number in front of it.
     #[test]
-    fn the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things() {
+    fn the_mastery_rating_is_in_points_as_the_mode_card_now_says() {
         let mut s = setup_3p(11);
         s.mode = ScoringMode::SharedGround;
         // Two claimed Problems worth 2 and 3 — five points, two cards.
@@ -3587,16 +3593,40 @@ mod tests {
         assert_eq!(o.total, 5, "the shared score is claimed VALUE");
         assert_eq!(
             o.mastery,
-            Some(2),
-            "mastery is the claimed COUNT, with no penalties in play"
+            Some(5),
+            "mastery starts from the shared POINT total, not the card count"
         );
-        // The disagreement, stated as a number rather than as a worry.
-        assert_ne!(
-            i32::try_from(o.total).unwrap(),
-            o.mastery.unwrap(),
-            "the two readings agree on this board, so F28 has no bite here \
-             and the example needs replacing"
+        // The board is chosen so the two readings disagree — two cards
+        // worth five points. Without that the test would pass under the
+        // reading it exists to exclude.
+        assert_eq!(
+            s.problems
+                .values()
+                .filter(|p| p.claimed_by.is_some())
+                .count(),
+            2,
+            "the fixture must claim a number of CARDS different from the \
+             POINT total, or it cannot tell the two readings apart"
         );
+
+        // **The edition's own sentence, not our memory of the ruling.**
+        // `Modes.csv` was clarified upstream; if that clarification is
+        // ever reverted this goes red rather than quietly diverging.
+        let (card, _) = crate::edition::modes()
+            .expect("Modes.csv")
+            .into_iter()
+            .find(|(c, _)| c.id == "MODE_COOP")
+            .expect("MODE_COOP");
+        assert!(
+            card.rules_text.contains("not card count"),
+            "the Mode card no longer rules out the card-count reading: {:?}",
+            card.rules_text
+        );
+
+        // And the penalties still bite, in points.
+        let seat = seats[0];
+        s.players.get_mut(&seat).unwrap().blame_from = vec![seats[1]];
+        assert_eq!(s.score().mastery, Some(4), "a Blame token costs 1 POINT");
     }
 
     /// **Every scenario is reachable through `setup`** (CB-WP-0047).
@@ -3634,14 +3664,13 @@ mod tests {
                     .collect::<Vec<_>>(),
             );
         }
-        // SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board by design, so four
-        // scenarios yield THREE distinct boards. Asserting 4 here would
-        // be asserting a fact about the edition that is not true.
+        // Four scenarios, four boards (F29). This asserted THREE until
+        // 2026-08-08, because SCN_01 and SCN_02 were identical decks;
+        // ground-game ruled that unintended and re-tuned SCN_02.
         assert_eq!(
             boards.len(),
-            3,
-            "the four scenarios yield {} distinct boards; SCN_01 and SCN_02 \
-             were identical and the other two differ",
+            4,
+            "the four scenarios yield {} distinct boards at 4p",
             boards.len()
         );
     }