CB-EV-0020: a gate moved the rule, and the report was wrong
The AM-1 coverage gate failed the build on GR-P05 being uncovered, which is what showed the rule was in the offer layer rather than in validate. A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for clients that ask what is legal. The gate did not catch a bug, it caught a design error. And the reported case was not the one reported. CB-WP-0018, CB-EV-0016 and the message to ground-game all described SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem; validate already rejected face-down, so it never was. Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal, so the three inert SOLVEs were the HAND case. The ruling covers both so nothing is invalidated, but a ruling was requested on a wrong description -- the second time in three passes that a premise reached ground-game unchecked, after the '12 points available' that voided GR-E01. Two of two. The pattern is not careless analysis; it is that a claim gets SENT the moment it is interesting and checked afterwards. Unexecuted verification, one step further out: not a belief acted on, but a belief published. CB-WP-0022's reproduction rule would have caught both. An earlier mutation run reported three survivors and was wrong -- the replacement strings did not match, so nothing was mutated. It proved nothing and looked like a result. Also renames CB-WP-0022-T06B to T07; the hub flagged it as an unregistered species. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
7a43de3f2a
commit
abd62c5567
5 changed files with 148 additions and 1 deletions
|
|
@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ id: CB-WP-0023
|
|||
kind: product
|
||||
title: "SOLVE is offered only where it can do something"
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
state_hub_workstream_id: "ae3a1491-4417-4cb2-b490-b694463cc171"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Purpose
|
||||
|
|
@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ exists to stop.
|
|||
id: CB-WP-0023-T01
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "52637f6f-314f-4715-9d81-5e9bea8ced97"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
SOLVE is offered on problem `p` for seat `s` **iff** `p.face_up`,
|
||||
|
|
@ -101,6 +103,7 @@ inverting the layering assertion turns `validate_enforces_all_four` red.
|
|||
id: CB-WP-0023-T02
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: medium
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "4a436635-2eff-42b1-957c-fdb8b310f910"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Update `specs/GroundRules.md` §Underdetermined for the SOLVE items, and
|
||||
|
|
@ -124,6 +127,7 @@ scenario rather than left as a gap.
|
|||
id: CB-WP-0023-T03
|
||||
status: done
|
||||
priority: high
|
||||
state_hub_task_id: "3a05165c-df33-4668-8ca2-2340789b3531"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
`evidence/CB-EV-0020-*.md`. Short.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue