diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md
index abe0ae9..65aaa27 100644
--- a/workplans/CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md
+++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md
@@ -80,6 +80,49 @@ asserts the final GET returns a page naming the outcome, **not** a refused
 connection. And the error path, driven by a game that fails, asserting the
 reason reaches the page.
 
+## The second report, and what it actually is
+
+Reported: *"the cards I play by pulling them on a target will not be
+removed, that is wrong i guess we will need a discard pile."*
+
+**A discard pile already exists** — `solution_discard` on `GroundState`,
+`SolutionDiscarded` removes the card from the hand and pushes it there,
+and the page already renders `deck N remaining / discard …`. Building one
+would have been building a thing that is there.
+
+What the maintainer dragged were **action** cards. The five GROUND actions
+are not cards and are correctly never consumed. Solution cards leave the
+hand at **Resolve**, not at Select, because a selection is a face-down
+commit.
+
+But the report is pointing at something real. Measured over a live game:
+
+| move | hand | discard |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 · Investigate → problem-2 | 2 cards | none |
+| 2 · Investigate → problem-3 | **3 cards** | none |
+| 3 · Solve → problem-1 | 4 cards | none |
+| 4 · Solve → problem-1 | **4 cards** | none |
+| 5 · Solve → problem-1 | **4 cards** | none |
+
+Investigate draws, correctly. **Solve was played three times and did
+nothing, three times, in silence.** GR-A02's resolver `continue`s when the
+problem is face-down, already claimed, denied, or when the seat holds no
+card of the matching suit — and `legal_commands` offers Solve on every
+face-up problem without consulting the hand, while the page offers it on
+problem-1 which was still face-down.
+
+**Whether that is a rule gap or intended is not this repo's call.** A
+face-down commit you cannot fulfil is a plausible bluff in a commit/reveal
+game with DARVO, and INTENT defers game semantics to `ground-game`. What
+*is* this repo's call is that a move which provably does nothing is
+offered, accepted, and never accounted for. That is the log's job (T02)
+and the explanation's job (T03), and it is now the concrete case both are
+measured against.
+
+Raised for `ground-game`, not decided here: **should SOLVE be selectable
+against a face-down problem, or against a suit the seat cannot match?**
+
 ## Task: a game log, and what to do next
 
 ```task
@@ -109,6 +152,12 @@ player sees state change with no account of why.
 produced, not re-narrated from the state. A log that describes the state
 after the fact is a second implementation of the rules and will drift.
 
+**The case it must handle**, from the measurement above: three SOLVEs that
+produced no events at all. A log built only from events would show nothing
+for them and reproduce the silence. So the log must distinguish *"this
+command produced these events"* from *"this command produced none"* —
+the second is the one the player needs and the harder one to render.
+
 ## Task: say where a drop goes, and what it means
 
 ```task