simulators/: persist the survey, and let it shrink two of the three tracks

Eight profiles on a common schema, each marking what was checked against a
source this session and what is background recollection. Three are marked
unverified in full — Machinations, the play substrates, most of RBG — and
say so rather than reading as evaluations. Written straight after three
review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what had been
checked, so the confidence rule is the first thing in the README.

The survey changed the plan, which is what a survey is for.

Track C was described in Positioning as open ground. It is not: Browne
published 57 criteria for game quality, and Ai Ai already computes
designer-facing measures — drama, lead changes, branching factor,
completion, duration — from played games. The track becomes adopt, credit
and find the gap. The gap looks real: those measures presume a leader, and
SHARED GROUND has none — Modes.csv gives its tiebreak as "Not applicable".

Track B probably adopts rather than builds. OpenSpiel implements CFR,
best-response and exploitability over games that are simultaneous-move,
imperfect-information and co-operative, which is all four of GROUND's
awkward properties. "Does ATTACK ever pay" is a best-response question,
and we spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it. The
first Track B task is now one question — is exploitability meaningful for
a co-operative game with a shared threshold — not a build.

The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable, and is recorded
rather than glossed.

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

workplans/CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md

@@ -112,6 +112,47 @@ rather than to a framework. **Every abstraction in this repo currently has
 exactly one instance**, which by our own rule means it may have been
 invented rather than observed.
 
+## Task: survey the field and persist it
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0040-T03
+status: done
+priority: medium
+```
+
+`simulators/`, one profile per system, comparable schema.
+
+**Controls:**
+- **every claim carries its source**, and a claim from background
+  knowledge is marked `unverified` — this directory was written straight
+  after three review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what
+  had been checked;
+- **the survey is allowed to change the plan**, or it was decoration.
+
+**Done 2026-08-08.** Eight profiles and an index.
+
+**It changed the plan, which is the point.** Two of the three tracks in
+`Positioning.md` were overclaimed:
+
+- **Track C is not open ground.** **Browne published 57 criteria for game
+  quality**, and **Ai Ai** already computes drama, lead changes, branching
+  factor, completion and duration for game authors. The track becomes
+  *adopt, credit, find the gap* — and the gap looks real: those measures
+  presume a leader, and **SHARED GROUND has none**.
+- **Track B probably adopts.** **OpenSpiel** implements CFR,
+  best-response and **exploitability** across simultaneous-move,
+  imperfect-information, co-operative games — all four of GROUND's awkward
+  properties. *"Does ATTACK ever pay"* is a best-response question, and we
+  spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it.
+
+**The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable**, and that is
+recorded rather than glossed.
+
+**Three profiles are marked `unverified` in full** — Machinations, the
+play substrates, and much of RBG. They are placeholders that keep an
+option from being forgotten, and they say so instead of reading as
+evaluations.
+
 ## Deliberately not done
 
 - **No game-theory implementation.** Track B is specified as a shape and