diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md
index 03d3266..0a10ca6 100644
--- a/workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md
+++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md
@@ -66,6 +66,30 @@ But it resolves nothing about GR-E01, and T03 must send ground-game a
 *sharper* question rather than a retirement: **either GR-S01's deal count
 is wrong or GR-E01's thresholds are, and no dataset can reconcile them.**
 
+## SUPERSEDED 2026-08-04 — ground-game ruled, and it was the deal
+
+The question above was sent and **answered** (GROUND-WP-0004, ruled
+2026-08-04). It was GR-S01:
+
+> **Surface always ∪ hidden priorities `1..k`**, with `k` = 2 (2p), 3
+> (3–4p), 4 (5–6p). *"Surface is never one of the hidden priority slots."*
+
+So the deal is **3 / 4 / 5** Problems, not 2 / 3 / 4. Available points
+become **6 / 9 / 12**, thresholds **5 / 7 / 9 stand**, and SHARED GROUND
+is a **2–6 player** mode as printed — not 5–6p only.
+
+**The import is now load-bearing rather than merely correct.** The ruled
+6 / 9 / 12 holds *only* with `Problems.csv` values (2,2,2,3,3). With the
+stand-in's `value = priority` the same deal gives **6 / 10 / 15** — a
+different game that happens to also be winnable. **Fixing the deal without
+importing the data would produce numbers ground-game did not rule on.**
+
+The two are therefore one pass, and this workplan is re-scoped to do both.
+
+**A subtlety the ruling keeps, worth not smoothing away:** at 2p, values
+2+2+2 against a threshold of 5 still require a **full clear** — any two
+cards sum to 4. *"Reachable ≠ forgiving."*
+
 ## The constraint, measured before declaring
 
 **AM-4a has 3,798 lines of headroom.** A CSV crate costs, marginally
@@ -127,6 +151,32 @@ content change.
 invalidates every recorded hash, in a project whose central invariant is
 replay determinism, is not a data-loading change.
 
+## Task: deal what GR-S01 now says
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0021-T05
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`problem_priorities` returns 2 / 3 / 4 and `setup` deals priorities
+`1..=N` with priority 1 as the face-up Surface. That is **Surface +
+(N−1) hidden**. The ruling is **Surface + k hidden**, k = 2 / 3 / 4.
+
+Do this **with** T02, not before it: the ruled arithmetic is a property of
+the deal *and* the data together, and landing one without the other gives
+numbers nobody ruled on.
+
+**Controls:**
+- for every seat band, `sum(point_value of dealt) ≥ threshold` — this is
+  the check ground-game asked for by name, and it replaces
+  `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p`;
+- the Surface Problem is dealt at every seat count and is **never** one of
+  the hidden slots;
+- **`gd0001` must be inverted**, not deleted. It asserts unreachability at
+  2/3/4 seats and is the record of why this changed; inverting it is how a
+  reader learns the game became winnable rather than that a test vanished.
+
 ## Task: import it, and let the thresholds mean something
 
 ```task
@@ -147,9 +197,10 @@ Hidden → face down) and `hidden_priority`.
   again.
 - **A scenario must be able to reach GR-E01's threshold at 2 players**,
   which is the specific thing that was impossible. Assert the arithmetic,
-  not just that a game runs.
-- The 5-problem shape must survive: the stand-in dealt 3, and code that
-  assumed 3 will not announce itself.
+  not just that a game runs — and at 2p that means a **full clear**, since
+  2+2+2 against 5 leaves no slack.
+- The deal shape must survive: code that assumed 2/3/4 Problems will not
+  announce itself when it becomes 3/4/5.
 
 ## Task: retire the rules gap that was never one
 
@@ -165,10 +216,13 @@ state_hub_task_id: "ff3bd923-9066-49ce-aadd-a3552e4964ff"
 *"is unreachable at 2, 3 and 4 players"*. If T02 lands, that scenario is
 asserting a property of the **stand-in**, not of the game.
 
-Retire or rewrite it, and **say which of the six provisional items this
-resolves**, so GROUND-WP-0002 T03 shrinks rather than being left to
-rediscover it. Message `ground-game` with the outcome — the last such
-message sat unread for four days because nothing pointed at it.
+**Ruled 2026-08-04:** *"Not a design gap. Rewrite as a non-provisional
+import/fixture check: for every seat band, `sum(point_value of dealt
+Problems) ≥ threshold`."*
+
+So it is **rewritten, not retired**, and it stops being provisional —
+`provisional_owner: ground-game` comes off because ground-game has now
+ruled. Message `ground-game` with the outcome.
 
 Do **not** quietly delete a failing-in-fact scenario. CB-EV-0005: *a score
 improved by deleting the question is not an improvement.*
diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md
index 925802f..c6e4be0 100644
--- a/workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md
+++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md
@@ -161,7 +161,12 @@ above, and require an attempt at:
   third thing;
 - **that "carries its reproduction" is affordable** — if half the real
   findings cannot be reproduced cheaply, the rule will be quietly dropped
-  and the register becomes a suggestion box anyway;
+  and the register becomes a suggestion box anyway. *(Since this task was
+  written the answer has hardened: two findings reached ground-game on
+  wrong premises, and ground-game has itself ruled that reproductions are
+  required. The reviewer should now press the opposite way — whether the
+  rule is **sufficient**, given both bad premises would have shipped a
+  passing test alongside a wrong description.)*
 - **that a register is needed at all**, rather than one more section in
   `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`, which already exists and already
   works.
@@ -212,6 +217,26 @@ Candidate measures, to be argued not adopted:
   *read*; that is the number this exists to fix;
 - **findings closed by a ruling** vs **findings still open**, with age.
 
+**ground-game has ruled on what a finding must carry** (GROUND-WP-0004
+T02, 2026-08-04), and it is stricter than this pass proposed. Adopt it:
+
+> 1. Arithmetic findings must ship a **runnable reproduction** *and* a
+>    **row-level deal table** listing Surface and each hidden priority
+>    separately — **never only "sum of file" or "deal depth N"**.
+> 2. ground-game rulings that depend on arithmetic **should cite** that
+>    reproduction id or path, so a later reader can re-run it.
+
+The second half is theirs to keep. The first is ours, and it is a direct
+consequence of both premises we got wrong: *"12 in the file"* was a sum
+without a deal table, and *"offered on a face-down Problem"* was a
+condition named without checking which one actually fired.
+
+**So the reproduction rule gains a shape requirement, not just an
+existence one.** A finding that ships a passing test but describes the
+wrong quantity is still a bad finding — which is exactly what happened
+twice. The spec must say what a reproduction has to *show*, not only that
+one exists.
+
 Also specify the **trial protocol**, which is the part with no precedent
 here: a trial game is a `--record`ed session plus an observation log, so
 *"we played it and X happened"* is replayable rather than remembered. The