CB-WP-0028 T03/T08: one overhead table, and what the nine observations

turned out to be

T03. One table_svg: seats around an elliptical table starting at the
BOTTOM -- the viewer sits nearest the reader, as at a real table --
Problems and both stacks in the middle, each seat's played card between it
and the centre, relations drawn between seats.

Two renderers were DELETED: relations_svg and piles_svg. The task said one
table not two diagrams, and leaving the old ones would have meant drawing
the same thing twice and letting them drift.

No coverage probe cost, through a restructure that merged three diagrams
and removed two functions. Second confirmation of CB-WP-0027's finding: a
probe naming a FACT survives a reflow, one naming a PRESENTATION does not.
CB-WP-0024's "17 remaining" broke on a rendering change; this far larger
reflow broke nothing.

The new control is per seat count -- no two seat circles closer than 70px
at 2 through 6 -- asserted rather than eyeballed at three, which is the
only count anyone ever looks at.

T08 (CB-EV-0026). Seven of nine observations were engine defects, one was
a design finding, one was already true and nobody could tell.

Observations 4 and 5 both dissolved and had ONE cause: nothing on the page
said how drawing works, so a player built a mental model to fill the gap
and reported the gap as two feature requests.

The import gap was worse than "one of nineteen" -- 5 of 13 columns read
from the file we DID vendor, discarded at parse time for eight days. Rule
coverage was 59/59 throughout. The gate measures whether rules are
EXERCISED; nothing measures whether a player can READ the game, and
nothing cheaply could, which is why the person playing it is the
instrument.

TWO GATES WERE WRITTEN FOR A SMALLER WORLD, and neither was wrong when
written. edition-check compared one recorded digest against Problems.csv
regardless of which file it described -- correct with one vendored file,
comparing across files with four. And a cb-play test asserted the literal
"game over" and went red when a won game said "solved", which was T06
working; it now asserts the heading against the OUTCOME and covers the
no-outcome case the original never touched.

Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in eleven declarations at d8.
Third and final statement of it: d8 bought rarity by spending evidence,
and a mechanism producing no data across a full window cannot be evaluated
by that window.

make all: exit 0. 57 render tests, 26 cb-play, loop-lint clean.

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

tools/cb-play/src/hotseat.rs

@@ -752,7 +752,19 @@ mod tests {
         let replies = client.join().expect("client");
 
         assert!(replies[0].contains("200 OK"), "{}", replies[0]);
-        assert!(replies[0].contains("game over"), "the page did not say so");
+        // CB-WP-0028 T06: the heading follows the OUTCOME, so this asks
+        // the view rather than hardcoding a word. The old assertion said
+        // "game over" and went red when a won game started saying
+        // "solved" -- which was the feature working.
+        let want = match view.outcome.as_ref() {
+            Some(o) if o.group_success => "game solved",
+            Some(_) => "game over",
+            None => "the game stopped",
+        };
+        assert!(
+            replies[0].contains(want),
+            "the heading did not match the outcome; expected {want:?}"
+        );
         assert!(
             replies[0].contains("30 commands"),
             "the result did not reach the page"