CB-WP-0024: the table you can watch

Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned
out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the
table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes
either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is
readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest
control is a person playing it.

T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said
"close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE
SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table
and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect,
and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every
control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that
made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null),
which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser.

The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned
{then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every
line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test
in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable
from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to
express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the
reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports
surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control
asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal.

T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question
the task required settling: it already works, at
games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that
ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state
before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a
reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that
ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this
underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message.

T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The
face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden
carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The
leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two
different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show,
because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws
nothing.

T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What
"cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer
is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and
games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at
different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE --
the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence
the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use
of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than
from play.

make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean.

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

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
 | F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
 | F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
 | F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
+| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
 
 <!-- design-register:end -->
 
@@ -61,6 +62,15 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
   `-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
   is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
   and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
+- **F15 — the rules define one game, not a series.** `OutcomeView` gives
+  `personal` (per seat), `group_success` (per table) and `winners`. Summing
+  the first and counting the third answer different questions, and GROUND
+  says nothing about how several games combine. CB-WP-0024 T04 shows
+  **both, labelled**, rather than picking one and letting it become the
+  score by default. `note`: no artifact demonstrates that this *harms*
+  play — a unit test showing the two tallies point at different seats
+  demonstrates only that they can differ, which is arithmetic, not a design
+  defect. Under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists.
 - **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
   played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
   playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the