coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

CB-WP-0008-T03: prove the 2-6 player range

Browse source 
GR-O01 states 2-6 players; every scenario in the corpus was 3-player.
Now all five counts play to GameEnded under both policies and reproduce
at the same seed, with scenarios at both boundaries and the CLI
transcript run at 2p, 3p and 6p.

Nothing broke — the rules are seat-count-generic. What the boundaries
exposed is arithmetic: with the standard preset's placeholder Problem
values (value = priority), the best total any game can reach is 3 at 2p,
6 at 3-4p, 10 at 5-6p, against GR-E01 thresholds of 5, 7 and 9. Group
success is unreachable below five seats regardless of play, and no
scenario noticed because none had played to scoring with everything
claimed.

GR-S01 calls the fixture a stand-in for scenario Problem data, so this
is evidence the stand-in is not neutral, not that GR-E01 is wrong. It is
pinned by a passing scenario, an arithmetic test, and a provisional
marker owned by ground-game so it ages in `make coverage`. The test
states its own delete-by: it is expected to fail when Problem values
become real data, and that failure is the signal to delete it.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-01 15:20:04 +02:00
parent 25531e9d01
commit d97e8e825d
7 changed files with 289 additions and 28 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

36
history/260801-cb-wp-0008-log.md
View file

@ -100,3 +100,39 @@ This is the same class as the AM-2 `expect` that matched passing output —
an assertion that cannot distinguish the two worlds. The remedy that
worked both times was **counting what the harness examined**, not
strengthening the predicate.
## T03 — the 2–6 player range
Every scenario in the corpus was 3-player. Now: `gr-o01-two-player`,
`gr-o01-six-player`, `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p`, plus all-bot
games at every count under both policies, each reproducing at the same
seed (K8 at the boundaries, not only in the middle), and the CLI
transcript test run at 2p, 3p and 6p.
**Nothing broke.** The rules are seat-count-generic and the range works.
What the boundaries exposed is arithmetic:
| seats | Problems | best possible total | GR-E01 threshold | group success |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | **unreachable** |
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | **unreachable** |
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | **unreachable** |
| 5 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
| 6 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
With the standard preset's placeholder values (value = priority), *no
play at all* can clear the threshold below five seats. GR-S01 calls the
fixture a stand-in for scenario Problem data, so this is evidence the
stand-in is not neutral — not that GR-E01 is wrong. It is pinned three
ways: a scenario that passes on the fact, a test that asserts the
arithmetic, and a `provisional` marker with `ground-game` as owner so it
ages in `make coverage` (now 6 provisional defaults).
The test carries its own delete-by condition: **it is expected to fail**
when Problem values become scenario data, and that failure is the signal
to delete it rather than re-tune it.
Two smaller notes, recorded and not acted on: at 2 players GR-L01's
second relation slot can never be used (there is only one possible
partner), and a human at P1 is always prompted before any other seat has
selected, so the seat order makes P1 a weaker test position than P3.