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>

specs/ChaosRollHistory.md

@@ -47,3 +47,34 @@ rolled six five times running (~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven
 rolls). `shuf` was tested over 200 rapid successive calls and looks
 uniform, longest run three. Recorded so a future window can check whether
 it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own.
+
+---
+
+## Window 3 — opened 2026-08-07 at d8, running to 12 declarations
+
+| # | pass | roll | override |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | CB-WP-0030 | d8 = 7 | — |
+| 2 | CB-WP-0031 | d8 = 2 | — |
+| 3 | CB-WP-0032 | d8 = 6 | — |
+| 4 | CB-WP-0033 | d8 = 7 | — |
+| 5 | CB-WP-0034 | d8 = 4 | — |
+| 6 | CB-WP-0035 | d8 = 4 | — |
+| 7 | CB-WP-0036 (first declaration) | d8 = 7 | — |
+| 8 | CB-WP-0036 (re-declared L→M) | d8 = 7 | — |
+| 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — |
+| 10 | CB-WP-0038 | **d8 = 8** | **yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing** |
+
+**The window's first 8, at declaration 10.** Expectation over ten rolls at
+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 two declarations left to run.
+
+**Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan**, counted
+separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was
+re-scoped from L to M after the maintainer moved the animation work out of
+the repo, and a changed declaration is a new declaration or the roll is
+not binding on what was actually built.