Close the three items CB-REV-0001 left open

H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.

Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.

Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.

That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.

regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.

All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.

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

evidence/CB-EV-0031-a-seat-that-does-not-regulate.md

@@ -124,7 +124,50 @@ failed.
   when a player feels cornered — that a human table answers and 3,200
   simulated games do not.
 
-## 5. Open
+## 5. The three items the review left open, now closed
+
+**H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack** — the delta says the extra Attack
+shares the Attack resolution *"so it can self-soothe too if Stress ≥ 4"*.
+CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares `resolve_attack`; nothing
+tested it, and the withdrawn §3 ran straight through this path.
+`h1b_soothes_the_darvo_stage_attack_too` now covers it, mutation-verified.
+
+**Round-5 pressure did not reach the score — a real defect, not a
+reporting one.** `end_round_events` scored from `self` while H1-A's
+pressure went into `work`, and `score` reads Stress for the GR-E03 and
+GR-E04 tiebreaks. The final round's pressure was invisible to **the two
+modes CB-EV-0030 reports on**. Fixed, and the test uses the case that
+actually bites: uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the
+**clamp** at 5 to collapse a gap and change who wins.
+
+**Inert arms, and a second wrong-subject error caught on the way.** A
+DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can never advance a stage — `GameEnded`
+follows immediately — and ground-game's criterion 1 is about DARVO
+*mattering*. Now reported separately:
+
+| seats | arms | of which inert |
+|---|---:|---:|
+| 2p | 363 | **29** (8%) |
+| 3p | 600 | 0 |
+| 4p | 800 | 0 |
+| 6p | 1200 | 0 |
+
+**The first version of that metric was wrong and equalled `darvo` in
+every cell**, because it tested `g.rounds >= 5` — a property of the
+*game*, not of the *event*. Every arm in every completed game was marked
+inert, which briefly looked like "criterion 1 is not met after all". An
+arm is inert when no `RoundEnded` follows it; that figure matches the
+reviewer's independent 29-of-363.
+
+**Criterion 1 stands as met**: 92% of arms at 2p and all of them above are
+live.
+
+**`regulation.rs` no longer skips setup failures silently.** They are
+counted, and a short cell now **fails an assertion** rather than printing
+a number a reader has to notice — which is what CB-EV-0030 §3 claimed
+credit for and only half did.
+
+## 6. Open
 
 - **The baseline's Stress economy being unreachable (§2) deserves its own
   finding**, and is not raised here because it wants the plural panel of