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>

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
 | F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
 | F23 | inconsistent | applied | decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
 | F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
-| F26 | inert | reported | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
+| F26 | inert | ruled | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
 | F27 | unplayed | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
-| F29 | inconsistent | reported | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
-| F30 | degenerate | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
-| F28 | underdetermined | reported | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
+| F29 | inconsistent | applied | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
+| F30 | degenerate | ruled | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
+| F28 | underdetermined | applied | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
 
 <!-- design-register:end -->
 
@@ -66,19 +66,6 @@ Prose for **closed** findings (withdrawn or applied) lives in
 are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
 
 
-- **F29 — SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board.** Identical suit and
-  value at every priority; every measured cell matches exactly at every
-  seat band under both policies. **Not called a defect** — a reskin is a
-  legitimate design choice — but "four scenarios" is three boards, and a
-  study treating them as four independent samples double-counts one.
-  `inconsistent` because two artifacts that present as distinct are not;
-  the register does not have a kind for "intended duplication", and
-  inventing one before ground-game rules would be answering for them.
-
-  **Sensitivity:** none — this is an identity, not a measurement. It
-  holds for every seed and every seat band by construction, and the test
-  is a characterisation so a future divergence is a decision.
-
 - **F30 — SCN_04 is materially harder at 2 players.** 52/100 group
   success against 67 and 73, with **every other parameter held by the
   edition itself**: same deal shape, same 6 available points, same
@@ -95,6 +82,11 @@ are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
   effect is specific to the 2p deal, which is the band where the deck has
   fewest cards to route around a suit it cannot match.
 
+  **RULED 2026-08-08:** acceptable variety for now; SCN_04 stands as a
+  harder board and is monitored. If table feel proves too swingy the
+  first lever is priority-2's suit (dropping the double Repair), **not**
+  the global thresholds — which also confirms our reading that the suit
+  multiset is the operative difference, without our having measured it.
 - **F27 — the two competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative
   play.** `scenario-panel` finds group success *exactly* equal across
   SHARED GROUND, COMMON PROBLEM and BONDED COALITIONS in all 36 cells.
@@ -135,20 +127,12 @@ are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
   policy models a *rival* playing their objective, so a competitive mode
   in which nobody anticipates an opponent remains a weak test of that
   mode (CB-WP-0049 "Not done here").
-- **F28 — SHARED GROUND's mastery rating counts cards where the mode
-  card counts points.** *"All claimed Problem cards form one shared score.
-  … For a mastery rating, subtract 1 for each Blame token still in play
-  and 1 for each Denied Problem."* The shared score is claimed **value**
-  (`total`); `mastery` subtracts the same penalties from the claimed
-  **count**. Both readings fit the sentence and they differ on every game
-  where a 3-point Problem is claimed. Ours to report, theirs to rule.
-
-  **Sensitivity:** vary only the point value of the claimed Problems and
-  the gap moves with `sum(value) - count`. The two readings agree exactly
-  when every claimed Problem is worth 1 — no Problem in the edition is —
-  or when nothing is claimed, which is a loss. Everything else is held
-  fixed: same board, same penalties, same threshold.
 
+  **The seat-band explanation is answered, 2026-08-08.** ground-game:
+  the two-relation-slot limit is an **intentional cap** on complexity and
+  play time; a third slot stays an extension rather than core r0. So the
+  6p flatness is designed, not a defect — and our sensitivity run is
+  welcome but would be measuring an extension, not the shipped game.
 - **F26 — a package that adds a FILE is invisible, where a package that
   adds a column is not.** `h2-scoped-problem-stress` ships
   `Rules_Text.csv` — twenty-two passages of player-facing rules, including
@@ -169,6 +153,10 @@ are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
   it needed (CB-WP-0046); the other twenty-one remain unread and that is
   the standing evidence.
 
+  **RULED 2026-08-08:** accepted as a process ask. Catalog and modules
+  will declare `consumed_files` / overlays so a consumer reading none of
+  a package's files is a detectable state. Tracked on their side under
+  GROUND-WP-0008.
 - **F17 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
   from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
   positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**: