CB-WP-0038: variant selection, H1 implemented, and H1 measured

ground-game packages hypotheses as selectable rules variants — a catalog,
a rules_delta.yaml, and prose — and their note is explicit that CSV text
alone is not executable here. So the kernel gains a Variant in game state:
in the state, therefore in the hash, therefore in the recording, because a
scenario replayed under a different variant would diverge silently.

Baseline is bit-for-bit what it was, asserted across seat counts and
seeds. A variant system that perturbs the baseline invalidates every
measurement this repo has.

H1-A and H1-B implemented from rules_delta.yaml and mutation-proven on
their own defects: "unclaimed" misread as face-up-and-unsolved, and the
attacker's Stress read after the attack's effects. Their `unchanged:` list
is asserted rather than trusted — that list is their claim about their own
experiment.

Measured, and three of their four criteria fail. DARVO arm rate is still
0 under greedy; ATTACK selection does not rise and falls for the rank-75
policy; group success collapses from 165/190/200 to 0 at 3/4/6 seats.
The mechanism is not the assumed one: greedy answers the pressure by
regulating, Stress plateaus at 3, so it never reaches the gate at 4 or the
arm at 5 — H1-A acts as a solve-rate tax and H1-B is unreachable under
competent play.

A harness defect was caught before the claim: sweep discarded refused
games silently and never reported its count, so "nobody won" and "nothing
played" printed identically. Reporting H1 as unwinnable on that basis
would have been the ADR-0018 family aimed at another repo's design. All
200 games ran in every cell; the zeros are real.

Chaos d8 = 8 — the window's first override, redrew L against a structural
L, so it changed nothing. Window 3 recorded in ChaosRollHistory.

NOT REVIEWED: tier L owes a separate-agent adversarial review, and no H1
result may reach ground-game until it has run.

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

evidence/CB-EV-0030-h1-measured.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# CB-EV-0030 — H1 measured
+
+CB-WP-0038. Tier L (structural L; **chaos d8 = 8 → override, redraw = L**
+— the override changed nothing). **Declaration 10 of chaos window 3, and
+the window's first 8.** Closed 2026-08-08.
+
+> **This evidence has not had its tier-L adversarial review** (InnerLoop
+> Step 2). **It may not go to `ground-game` until it has.** It is a
+> measurement of another repo's design hypothesis, which is precisely the
+> case the review exists for.
+
+**Delivered:** variant selection in the kernel, H1-A and H1-B implemented
+from `rules_delta.yaml`, ground-game's `unchanged:` list asserted rather
+than trusted, and the ATTACK panel re-run for both rule sets.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The result, against their own criteria
+
+`ground-game`'s success criteria (design note §3.2), answered one by one.
+**Three of four fail.**
+
+| # | criterion | verdict |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial, "not 0/500" | **fails** — still **0** under greedy at every seat count |
+| 2 | ATTACK selection rises for some subpopulation | **fails** — greedy still attacks **0** times; and for the rank-75 policy ATTACK *fell*, 604 → 180 at 2p |
+| 3 | group success does not collapse | **fails hardest** — greedy's wins go **165 → 0** (3p), **190 → 0** (4p), **200 → 0** (6p) |
+| 4 | Bond/GROUND stay better than DARVO | holds, but **vacuously**: DARVO never fires |
+
+SHARED GROUND, greedy column, 200 games per cell:
+
+| seats | baseline won | H1 won |
+|---|---:|---:|
+| 2p | 132 | **68** |
+| 3p | 165 | **0** |
+| 4p | 190 | **0** |
+| 6p | 200 | **0** |
+
+## 2. Why — and the mechanism is not the one H1 assumed
+
+H1-A was meant to raise Stress toward the DARVO arm at 5. **It does not
+get there under competent play.** One 3-player game, seed 1:
+
+| | rounds | final Stress | Problems unclaimed | DARVO armed | outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| baseline | 5 | 0, 1, 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 of 7 — **success** |
+| H1 | 5 | 3, 3, 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 of 7 — **failure** |
+
+**Greedy spends its actions on Stress instead of Problems.** The pressure
+is answered by regulating, so Stress plateaus around 3 — below the gate at
+4 and well below the arm at 5 — while two Problems go unclaimed and the
+total lands under the threshold.
+
+**So H1-A behaves as a solve-rate tax, not as DARVO pressure.** And since
+Stress never reaches 4, **H1-B never fires at all under competent play**:
+the self-soothe is unreachable by the policy it was designed to tempt.
+
+**The seat-count pattern is the tell.** At 2p — three Problems, so a table
+can clear the board — H1 *helps* in SHARED (132 → 68 is a fall, but 2p is
+the only band that still wins at all). At 3p and above the board is bigger
+than the pressure allows a table to clear, and success goes to zero. The
+tax scales with the number of Problems; the intended effect does not.
+
+## 3. The harness defect caught before the claim
+
+The first run showed `won`, `atk` and `darvo` **all exactly 0** at 3+
+seats. That is the signature of games being *discarded*, not lost.
+
+`sweep` had `let Ok(g) = play(st, &mut ps) else { continue };` and **never
+reported its game count**, so a run in which nothing played and a run in
+which nothing won were the same output.
+
+> **Reporting "H1 makes the game unwinnable" when the truth might have
+> been "our harness threw every H1 game away" would have been the
+> ADR-0018 family — aimed, this time, at another repository's design
+> decision.**
+
+Instrumented: setup failures counted, `play` errors captured and printed,
+`games != 200` reported. **All 200 ran in every cell.** The zeros are
+real, and now they are known to be real.
+
+## 4. What this evidence does not say
+
+- **It does not say H1 is a bad idea.** It says these two deltas, at these
+  magnitudes, measured by this panel, do not do what §3.2 asks. Their §6
+  already has the branch for it: *"H1 measured | DARVO still ~0 | add Idea
+  2 last-place stress (semi only) as H2"*.
+- **The panel is greedy-family throughout** — greedy, and greedy with
+  ATTACK reranked to 75 and 95. Plural, per RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1,
+  but not diverse. A policy that *manages Stress badly* would reach 5 and
+  arm DARVO, and none of these do. **That is the obvious next measurement
+  and it has not been run.**
+- **No felt-play.** GROUND-WP-0003 T01–T05 runs human tables separately,
+  and 200-game aggregates cannot say what a table feels like.
+
+## 5. A tuning direction, offered as a question and not a finding
+
+If the aim is Stress reaching 5 sometimes, the tax must outrun regulation.
+Candidates, none measured: pressure scaling with the *number* of unclaimed
+Problems rather than a flat +1; applying it only above a Round threshold;
+or lowering the DARVO arm below 5. **Each is a rules change and therefore
+ground-game's to make, not ours to propose as a fix.**
+
+## 6. Cost
+
+`make cost`, not inlined. One vendored catalog and one experiment package;
+no new dependency.
+
+## Open after this pass
+
+- **The tier-L adversarial review**, before any of this travels.
+- **A policy that regulates badly**, which is the measurement §4 names.
+- **H1-B has never been observed firing** in a real game — only in a unit
+  test. A delta that competent play cannot reach is untested where it
+  matters.