From 713a9df7fdf4c7f01f7914416c4f1a4dbd299ddc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 11:41:16 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] CB-WP-0040: name the stratum before naming the defect MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The maintainer could not tell whether "error", "failure", "finding" or "correction" referred to the game's design, our formalisation of it, the code, the measuring apparatus, or the sentences we wrote. Three review rounds produced twenty-odd defect statements spanning five systems, all called errors. The confusion was ours. specs/Taxonomy.md, grounded in named canon rather than invented here: six strata from Sargent's problem entity / conceptual model / computerized model, extended where a simulation-V&V frame stops — we also own an instrument and an account. The two relations are what was missing: GAME<->MODEL is validation, MODEL<->ENGINE is verification, and nearly every argument about "our bug or their gap" was that distinction going unnamed. Fault/error/failure from Avizienis et al., applied within a stratum, plus the rule that explains the review history: a failure in one stratum is a fault in the next. And it finally defines the family ADR-0018 could only point at — a wrong-subject error is an ACCOUNT failure with no INSTRUMENT fault, which is why tests never catch them. MDA supplies the game-facing layers and one hard limit: our panels measure dynamics, our trial logs sample aesthetics, and a win rate does not answer "is it fun". specs/Positioning.md names the field fairly — Ludii is the closest relative and the right benchmark — and the four differentiators, each already built rather than aspired to. Clay-borg is a design-evidence instrument; anyone can produce the number. Three tracks named and none started: a second game, game theory as the lens on dynamics, and assimilated knowledge about why games work. Track A is the falsifier for the whole positioning: every abstraction here has exactly one instance, which by our own rule may mean invented rather than observed. Chaos window 3 closes at 12 declarations with one override that changed nothing. Its verdict is due and is deliberately not written here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- INTENT.md | 35 ++++ specs/ChaosRollHistory.md | 12 +- specs/Positioning.md | 148 ++++++++++++++ specs/Taxonomy.md | 185 ++++++++++++++++++ .../CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md | 123 ++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 502 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 specs/Positioning.md create mode 100644 specs/Taxonomy.md create mode 100644 workplans/CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md diff --git a/INTENT.md b/INTENT.md index da25b01..f5d18e7 100644 --- a/INTENT.md +++ b/INTENT.md @@ -22,10 +22,28 @@ development engine with four distinct properties: tolerates an undecided rule by quietly picking a default and not raising it, this property is false.)* +A fifth property, added 2026-08-08 because three adversarial review rounds +made it undeniable: + +5. **The instrument is under the same discipline as the engine.** Twelve + fatal defects were found in one measurement, **every one in our + apparatus and none in the game**, and several had already been written + into evidence as conclusions. A tool that reports design findings + without treating its own measurements as claims is reporting its bugs + at the same volume as its results. *(See [`specs/Taxonomy.md`](specs/Taxonomy.md) + for what "defect" now means, and where.)* + The central rule: > **Own the semantics; assimilate the implementation.** +And the second, which says what the product actually is: + +> **Clay-borg is a design-evidence instrument.** Its output is not a +> number about a game; it is an auditable answer to *what does this rule +> do at the table, and how much should you trust that* — +> [`specs/Positioning.md`](specs/Positioning.md). + Clay-Borg owns what an entity, object, command, event, card, zone, relationship, game, simulation, asset, plugin, and capability *mean*. External libraries (wgpu, Rapier, Bevy ECS, Wasmtime, Quinn, egui, Serde, @@ -33,6 +51,23 @@ tracing, …) provide optimized implementations of rendering, physics, networking, serialization, and similar functions behind canonical ports. No external library type should leak across a canonical interface. +## Vocabulary + +*"Error"*, *"failure"*, *"finding"* and *"correction"* were each being +used for the game's design, our formalisation of it, the code, the +measuring apparatus and the sentences we wrote. +[`specs/Taxonomy.md`](specs/Taxonomy.md) fixes that: **every defect +statement names a stratum first** — GAME, MODEL, ENGINE, INSTRUMENT, +ACCOUNT, PRESENTATION — because "a bug in the simulator" and "a gap in the +game" have different owners and different fixes. + +## Where this is going + +Three tracks, none started, in [`specs/Positioning.md`](specs/Positioning.md) §4: +**a second game** (which is the falsifier for "GROUND is an example"), +**game theory as the lens on dynamics**, and **assimilated knowledge about +why games work**, offered to designers. + ## Why GROUND first GROUND requires modest physics but sophisticated social state, simultaneous diff --git a/specs/ChaosRollHistory.md b/specs/ChaosRollHistory.md index 23517ea..73cb0be 100644 --- a/specs/ChaosRollHistory.md +++ b/specs/ChaosRollHistory.md @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own. | 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — | | 10 | CB-WP-0038 | **d8 = 8** | **yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing** | | 11 | CB-WP-0039 | d8 = 2 | — | +| 12 | CB-WP-0040 | d8 = 5 | — | **The window's first 8, at declaration 10.** Expectation over ten rolls at d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate. @@ -72,7 +73,16 @@ d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate. **The override changed nothing**, which is the observation ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition is built from — it needs *a full window whose overrides all change nothing*, in two consecutive windows. This window now -has one qualifying override and **one declaration left to run**. +had one qualifying override, and it changed nothing. + +**Window 3 is closed at 12 declarations. Its verdict is due and is not +written here** — recording it is a change to how the loop constrains its +own operation, which is a tier-M trigger in its own right, and window 2's +verdict was delayed the same way. **One override in twelve, changing +nothing**, is the second consecutive window to produce no override that +changed an outcome; ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition asks for exactly +that in two consecutive windows and should now be evaluated rather than +restated. **Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan**, counted separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was diff --git a/specs/Positioning.md b/specs/Positioning.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3d48ed9 --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/Positioning.md @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@ +# Positioning — what clay-borg is for, and what it does that others do not + +Status: **draft**. A working answer to *"where does this sit, and what is +the point of it"*, written against the field rather than in isolation. + +Companion to [`../INTENT.md`](../INTENT.md) (what we are building), +[`Taxonomy.md`](Taxonomy.md) (the vocabulary), and +[`Ornamentation.md`](Ornamentation.md) (the boundary). + +--- + +## 1. The field, honestly + +There are mature systems here and we are not first. + +| system | what it optimises for | what it does not do | +|---|---|---| +| **Ludii** (Digital Ludeme Project) | *generality of representation*. Games as **ludemes** — composable, human-readable concepts. Fast, broad, a game fits in a QR code | it is not built to argue with the designer about the rules, and its evidence is not auditable by a third party | +| **GDL / General Game Playing** (Stanford) | *agent generality* — an agent that plays a game it has never seen | verbose, slow relative to Ludii, and aimed at AI research rather than design support | +| **Machinations** | *economy and feedback-loop simulation*, diagrammatic and immediate | not rules-complete; a model of flows, not of a played game | +| **Tabletop Simulator / boardgame.io** | *play*, human or networked | no analysis; the rules are a script, not a claim | +| **RL self-play stacks** | *strength* | a strong agent tells you what beats what, not why a rule is undecided | + +**Ludii is the closest relative and the right benchmark.** If clay-borg's +answer to *"why not Ludii"* is only "ours is in Rust", there is no answer. + +## 2. What we do differently + +Four things, and each is already visible in the repo rather than aspired +to. + +### 2.1 The measurement is under suspicion by construction + +Every other system in §1 treats its own output as data. **This one treats +its own output as a claim that has to survive an attempt to break it** — +`GameDesign.md` §1 admissibility, the finding register, mutation-proof as +a condition for a control, and mandatory adversarial review at tier L. + +**This is not a posture; it is measured.** Three review rounds on one +measurement found twelve fatal defects, **every one in our instrument and +none in the game** — including two that inverted a verdict already written +down. A tool that reports game-design conclusions without that machinery +is reporting its own bugs at the same volume as its results. + +### 2.2 Authority is federated, and the simulator is not the authority + +The game's owner rules; we report. A rule we cannot execute becomes a +**finding** carried back with the artifact that produced it — never a +default we quietly pick. + +**Ludii's model is a description someone wrote. Ours is a claim about +somebody else's artifact**, with digests and tripwires against their +source of truth, and a queue of open questions that belong to them. That +is a different relationship to the designer than any system above has. + +### 2.3 What is *not* mechanism is modelled too + +[`Ornamentation.md`](Ornamentation.md). Materials, ceremony, typography, +timing — declared, with falsifiers, and separated from the rules by a test +something can run (does the state hash move?). + +Every system in §1 either ignores this or treats it as presentation +config. **We treat "this does not matter" as a claim that can be wrong**, +because our own register is a list of times it was. + +### 2.4 A hypothesis is a package, not a patch + +A design experiment arrives as a selectable variant — a catalog entry, +a machine-readable `rules_delta`, declared success criteria — and is +measured against those criteria, with the results reported including the +parts that fail. The variant is in the game state, so a recording says +which rules it was played under. + +## 3. What that adds up to + +> **Clay-borg is a design-evidence instrument, not a game engine and not a +> game-playing AI.** Its product is an auditable answer to *"what does this +> rule actually do at the table, and how much should you trust that?"* + +The second half of that sentence is the differentiator. Anyone can produce +the number. + +## 4. Where it has to go + +Three tracks, in dependency order. None started. + +### Track A — a second game + +**GROUND is an example, and nothing has tested that claim.** Every +abstraction here has exactly one instance, which by our own rule +(GameDesign §2) means it may have been invented rather than observed. + +The work is to take a **popular, well-understood game** — one where the +dynamics are already documented, so our output can be checked against +something — and build a clay-borg definition efficiently enough that the +cost is itself the finding. **The measurement that matters is how much of +the kernel turns out to be GROUND-shaped.** + +Ludii's ludeme decomposition is the obvious prior art to steal from, and +the honest question is whether we need our own description language at all +or should consume theirs. + +### Track B — game theory as the lens on dynamics + +§4 of [`Taxonomy.md`](Taxonomy.md): our panels measure **dynamics**, and +game theory is the science of exactly that. Today we sample the strategy +space with two hand-written policies and a rank parameter. That is a crude +instrument for questions that have real theory behind them: + +- **dominance** — is an action dominated? (F17 asks this about ATTACK and + answers it with a sweep) +- **equilibrium** — what does competent play converge to, and is it the + play the designer intended? +- **cooperative solution concepts** — GROUND is co-operative with a + defection mechanic; the **core** and the **Shapley value** are the + standard tools for "is this coalition stable" and "what is a seat + contributing", which is precisely what GR-E04 is groping at +- **social dilemmas** — DARVO is one; the literature on them is large + +**The proposed shape is a specialised agent**, not a library: something +that reads a clay-borg game definition and a panel run, and reports what +the theory says about the dynamics — with the same admissibility rules as +everything else, because a Nash equilibrium quoted without its assumptions +is exactly the wrong-subject error in mathematical dress. + +### Track C — assimilated knowledge about why games work + +The furthest out, and the one the maintainer named as the point: +**make what is known about game dynamics available to designers.** + +MDA's aesthetics vocabulary, the balance literature, documented failure +modes (runaway leader, kingmaking, analysis paralysis, dominant strategy, +degenerate equilibrium). The value is not a database — it is that a +finding from a panel run can be **named** as an instance of a known +pattern, and the designer told what usually follows. + +**The risk is obvious and worth stating now**: this track is where a tool +starts telling designers what is fun, on the strength of numbers that +measure dynamics. §4 of the taxonomy is the guard, and it will be under +pressure here. + +## 5. Falsifier + +**Track A is the falsifier for this whole document.** If a second game +cannot be defined without reshaping the kernel around it, then "GROUND is +an example" was never true, clay-borg is a GROUND engine with ambitions, +and §2's differentiators are properties of one bespoke tool rather than of +a framework. diff --git a/specs/Taxonomy.md b/specs/Taxonomy.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3bb5fce --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/Taxonomy.md @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@ +# Taxonomy — which system is a statement about? + +Status: **draft**, normative for new work. Changes go through a decision +record in `decisions/`. + +This document exists because the words were doing too much work. *"Error"*, +*"failure"*, *"finding"* and *"correction"* were each being used for the +game's design, our formalisation of it, the code, the measuring apparatus, +and the sentences we wrote — five different things, one vocabulary. + +> **Every defect statement names a stratum before it names anything else.** +> "A bug in the simulator" and "a gap in the game" are not the same kind of +> claim, do not have the same owner, and are not fixed by the same person. + +Grounded in existing practice rather than invented here: the +fault/error/failure chain from **Avizienis, Laprie, Randell & Landwehr** +(*Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing*, IEEE +TDSC 1:1, 2004); the model strata and the verification/validation split +from **Sargent** (*Verification and Validation of Simulation Models*); and +**MDA** (Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek, 2004) for the game-facing layers. + +--- + +## 1. The strata + +| stratum | canon | what it is | who owns it | +|---|---|---|---| +| **GAME** | Sargent's *problem entity*; MDA *mechanics as designed* | the rules as the game's owner defines them — the edition, the printed text | **the game's owner**, not us | +| **MODEL** | Sargent's *conceptual model* | our formalisation: `GroundRules.md`, the rule ids, the state we chose to represent | us, answerable to the owner | +| **ENGINE** | Sargent's *computerized model* | the kernel that implements the model | us | +| **INSTRUMENT** | measurement apparatus | harnesses, policies, metrics, gates, the trial protocol | us | +| **ACCOUNT** | — | evidence files, register entries, messages, this document | us | +| **PRESENTATION** | MDA *aesthetics*-facing | the page, and everything [`Ornamentation.md`](Ornamentation.md) covers | us, later `clay-animate` | + +### 1.1 The two relations that matter + +> **GAME ↔ MODEL is validation.** *Did we formalise the right game?* +> +> **MODEL ↔ ENGINE is verification.** *Did we implement the formalisation +> correctly?* + +This is Sargent's split and it is the one we kept losing. A statement that +the engine mis-scores a Bond is **verification**. A statement that the +rules do not say what happens when two Bonds break simultaneously is +**validation** — and it is not ours to answer. + +**Sargent's third leg is `data validity`**, and it is where +`editions/` lives: the vendored CSVs, their digests, and the tripwires in +`edition.rs` are data validation, not verification. + +### 1.2 What each stratum's defects look like + +| stratum | a defect here looks like | +|---|---| +| GAME | a rule that does not decide; a dominant strategy; an action that earns its place nowhere | +| MODEL | we represented a rule the edition does not have, or omitted one it does | +| ENGINE | the code does not do what `GroundRules.md` says | +| INSTRUMENT | the measurement answers a different question than the one asked | +| ACCOUNT | the sentence claims more than the artifact shows | +| PRESENTATION | the player cannot see, or misreads, what the state says | + +--- + +## 2. Fault, error, failure + +Avizienis' chain, unchanged, applied **within** a stratum. + +| term | definition | example, INSTRUMENT stratum | +|---|---|---| +| **fault** | the defect in the artifact — the wrong line, the wrong column, the wrong constant | `peak` maximised over `StressSet` payloads | +| **error** | the wrong internal state it produces | the metric holds 1 where the game held 2 | +| **failure** | the deviation visible at the interface | the evidence file says *"peak Stress was 1"* | + +**A fault is dormant until activated.** `attack-value.rs`'s missing +assertion was a fault for weeks and produced no error, because no cell was +ever short. + +### 2.1 The rule that explains our history + +> **A failure in one stratum is a fault in the next.** + +An INSTRUMENT failure (a metric reporting the wrong number) is an ACCOUNT +fault (a sentence built on it). An ACCOUNT failure that reaches the owner +is a fault in *their* decision-making. That is why +[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) §1 gates what may leave the repo: it is a +firebreak in this chain, not politeness. + +### 2.2 The wrong-subject error, defined at last + +[ADR-0018](../decisions/ADR-0018-a-number-that-does-not-move.md) named a +family and could not say precisely what it was. In this vocabulary: + +> **A wrong-subject error is an ACCOUNT failure with no INSTRUMENT fault.** +> The measurement is correct about *its* subject; the sentence is about a +> different one. + +`peak Stress was 1` — the metric correctly reported the maximum *assigned* +Stress. `Reactive is greedy with one preference changed` — the policy +correctly implemented what was written. **Nothing was miscomputed in +either case**, which is exactly why tests did not catch them and why the +fix is never "add a test to the engine". + +--- + +## 3. The vocabulary, fixed + +| word | means | does not mean | +|---|---|---| +| **finding** | a statement about the **GAME** stratum, admissible under GameDesign §1, addressed to the owner | any defect we happen to notice | +| **defect** | a fault in any stratum we own — MODEL, ENGINE, INSTRUMENT, ACCOUNT, PRESENTATION | a design question | +| **fix** | a change to the **artifact** that removes a fault | a change to what we said | +| **correction** | a change to the **ACCOUNT** — a claim withdrawn, restated or re-derived | a code change | +| **retraction** | a correction of something that has already **left the repo** | an internal edit | +| **regression** | a fault introduced by a change, in any stratum | any failure | +| **inert control** | a control that cannot fail, so proves nothing (ADR-0006 D3) | a control that happens to be green | + +**The register carries findings.** Where an entry is really a defect in a +stratum we own — F18, F24, F25 are ENGINE/data — the row says so, because +"the engine has not read this file" and "the game does not decide this" +are different claims to a reader deciding what to act on. + +--- + +## 4. What the layers measure, and what they cannot + +MDA gives the game-facing split, and it maps onto instruments we already +have: + +| MDA layer | where it lives here | what measures it | +|---|---|---| +| **Mechanics** | GAME → MODEL → ENGINE | the rule-coverage gate, the edition tripwires | +| **Dynamics** — the behaviour that emerges in play | what the ENGINE produces over many games | the policy panels: win rates, DARVO arm rates, action selection | +| **Aesthetics** — the player's response | not representable in state | **trial notes, and nothing else** | + +> **Our panels measure dynamics. Our trial logs sample aesthetics. Neither +> substitutes for the other**, and the recurring temptation is to report a +> dynamics number as though it settled an aesthetics question — *"is the +> game fun at 5 seats"* is not answered by a win rate. + +MDA's own directional insight is the reason: **the designer builds +mechanics upward hoping for a feeling; the player meets the feeling first +and infers the rules.** A simulator sits at the bottom of that arrow and +can only ever report upward. + +--- + +## 5. Worked examples from this repo + +Because a taxonomy with no instances was invented rather than observed +(GameDesign §2). + +| what happened | stratum | fault / error / failure | +|---|---|---| +| `solution_deck()` is a Rust literal that never reads `Solutions.csv` | ENGINE (data validity) | dormant **fault**; no error, because the literal agrees | +| `score()` read `self` while H1's pressure went into `work` | ENGINE | **fault**; error only at round 5; no measured failure | +| GR-P05 — SOLVE offered where it could not act | MODEL, then GAME | our **failure**, escalated to a GAME finding, ruled by the owner | +| ATTACK earns its place in no mode (F17) | **GAME** | a finding — not a defect at all | +| `peak Stress was 1` | ACCOUNT | **failure** with no instrument fault (§2.2) | +| the panels ran under no gate | INSTRUMENT | **fault** — every published figure came from an ungated binary | +| the note channel closed when the game ended | PRESENTATION | **failure**; the state was right, the player could not reach it | + +**Read the stratum column.** Six rows, six different owners and six +different fixes, and every one of them was called "an error" at the time. + +--- + +## 6. Falsifier + +If a defect arises that cannot be placed in exactly one stratum, the +strata are wrong — either too few, or cut in the wrong place. **Record the +instance rather than widening a definition to swallow it**, which is how a +taxonomy stops distinguishing anything. + +A second falsifier, from §2.2: if a wrong-subject error is ever found that +*did* have an instrument fault, then the family is not what ADR-0018 and +this document say it is. + +## Sources + +- Avizienis, Laprie, Randell & Landwehr, *Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of + Dependable and Secure Computing*, IEEE TDSC 1(1), 2004. +- Sargent, *Verification and Validation of Simulation Models*, Winter + Simulation Conference. +- Hunicke, LeBlanc & Zubek, *MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and + Game Research*, AAAI Workshop, 2004. diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f1f0c1b --- /dev/null +++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +--- +id: CB-WP-0040 +kind: meta +title: "What a statement is about" +status: done +--- + +# Purpose + +``` +structural tier M (fixes the vocabulary the loop uses to describe its + own defects, and states where the repo is going) +chaos d8 = 5 → no override +declared tier M +``` + +**Declaration 12 of chaos window 3 — the window's last.** Its verdict is +due, and this pass does not write it. + +## The report + +> *"It is hard for me to follow what you mean by error, failure, finding +> and correction because i often cant tell if we are talking about the game +> mechanics, the simulator, the telemetry, intended results, +> visualization, etc."* + +**The maintainer is right and the confusion is ours.** Three review rounds +produced twenty-odd defect statements spanning five different systems, all +called "errors". + +## Task: the taxonomy, grounded in canon + +```task +id: CB-WP-0040-T01 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +**Controls:** +- **grounded, not invented** — named sources, because a private vocabulary + is a second thing to learn; +- **worked examples from this repo**, or the taxonomy was invented rather + than observed (GameDesign §2); +- **a falsifier**: what would show the strata are cut wrong. + +**Done 2026-08-08.** [`specs/Taxonomy.md`](../specs/Taxonomy.md). + +**Six strata** — GAME, MODEL, ENGINE, INSTRUMENT, ACCOUNT, PRESENTATION — +from **Sargent**'s problem entity / conceptual model / computerized model, +extended where a simulation-V&V frame stops (we also own an *instrument* +and an *account*). + +**The two relations are the part that was missing.** GAME↔MODEL is +**validation**; MODEL↔ENGINE is **verification**. Nearly every argument we +have had about "is this our bug or their gap" was that distinction going +unnamed. + +**Fault / error / failure** from **Avizienis et al.**, applied within a +stratum, plus the rule that explains the whole review history: **a failure +in one stratum is a fault in the next.** + +**And it finally defines the family ADR-0018 could only point at:** a +wrong-subject error is *an ACCOUNT failure with no INSTRUMENT fault*. The +measurement is right about its own subject; the sentence is about a +different one. **That is why tests never catch these** and why the fix is +never "add a test to the engine". + +**MDA** supplies the game-facing layers and one hard limit: **our panels +measure dynamics, our trial logs sample aesthetics, and neither substitutes +for the other.** A win rate does not answer "is it fun". + +## Task: positioning, and the tracks + +```task +id: CB-WP-0040-T02 +status: done +priority: high +``` + +**Controls:** +- **name the competition and be fair to it** — a differentiator that + requires misdescribing Ludii is not one; +- **every claimed differentiator is visible in the repo already**, not + aspired to; +- **a falsifier for the whole document.** + +**Done 2026-08-08.** [`specs/Positioning.md`](../specs/Positioning.md). + +**Ludii is the closest relative and the right benchmark** — ludemes, a +game in a QR code, far broader than us. If our answer to *"why not Ludii"* +is "ours is in Rust", there is no answer. + +**The four differentiators, each already built:** the measurement is under +suspicion by construction; authority is federated, so the owner rules and +we report; what is *not* mechanism is modelled too; and a hypothesis is a +package with declared criteria rather than a patch. + +> **Clay-borg is a design-evidence instrument.** Its product is an +> auditable answer to *what does this rule do at the table, and how much +> should you trust that*. Anyone can produce the number. + +**Three tracks named, none started** — a second game; game theory as the +lens on dynamics; assimilated knowledge about why games work. + +**Track A is the falsifier for the entire positioning.** If a second game +cannot be defined without reshaping the kernel, then "GROUND is an +example" was never true and the differentiators belong to one bespoke tool +rather than to a framework. **Every abstraction in this repo currently has +exactly one instance**, which by our own rule means it may have been +invented rather than observed. + +## Deliberately not done + +- **No game-theory implementation.** Track B is specified as a shape and + nothing more, because a solution concept quoted without its assumptions + is the wrong-subject error in mathematical dress — and this repo has just + spent three review rounds on that family. +- **No second game started.** It is the largest track and wants its own + declaration. +- **The register rows are not re-stratified.** `Taxonomy.md` §3 says a row + should name its stratum; the existing rows do not yet, and rewriting + twenty-five of them in the pass that invented the rule would put the rule + beyond challenge before anyone had used it.