25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it

says

Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.

But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.

THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.

So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.

  rank 10 (below all):   132/165/190/200/200 wins,    0 attacks,    0 DARVO
  rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923,      13-218
  rank 95 (above SOLVE):     0/0/0/0/0 wins,        1400-5170,   400-1000

THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.

The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.

Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.

F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.

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

games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+//! F17's reproduction: what is ATTACK worth? (CB-WP-0029 follow-up.)
+//!
+//! The maintainer reported *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long
+//! as I have positive cards"*. F17 sat as a note because nothing
+//! demonstrated it. This is the artifact.
+//!
+//! GreedyPolicy ranks Attack at 10, below everything (bot.rs). So its zero
+//! attacks measure OUR HEURISTIC, not the game. The test is a policy
+//! identical in every other respect with Attack promoted: if it wins as
+//! often, attacking is neutral; much less, avoiding it is correct play;
+//! more, and greedy is simply wrong.
+use cb_game_runtime::{ScenarioGame, Setup};
+use cb_kernel::PlayerId;
+use games_ground::bot::{play, Choice, GreedyPolicy, Policy};
+use games_ground::{Action, GroundCommand, GroundState};
+
+/// Greedy's ordering with ATTACK promoted to the top of the action list.
+/// A copy of the ranking, not a call into it: `GreedyPolicy::rank` is
+/// private, and the point is to vary exactly one number.
+struct Attacker(i32);
+impl Policy for Attacker {
+    fn name(&self) -> &'static str {
+        "attacker"
+    }
+    fn choose(
+        &mut self,
+        state: &GroundState,
+        seat: PlayerId,
+        legal: &[GroundCommand],
+        _p: bool,
+    ) -> Choice {
+        let gated = state
+            .players
+            .get(&seat)
+            .is_some_and(|p| p.stress >= 4 && !p.freedom_gate_lifted);
+        let rank = |c: &GroundCommand| -> i32 {
+            match c {
+                GroundCommand::SelectAction {
+                    action, problem, ..
+                } => match action {
+                    Action::Ground if gated => 100,
+                    Action::Attack => self.0, // <-- the ONE varying number (greedy: 10)
+                    Action::Solve
+                        if problem
+                            .and_then(|p| state.problems.get(&p))
+                            .is_some_and(|p| p.claimed_by.is_some()) =>
+                    {
+                        5
+                    }
+                    Action::Solve => 90,
+                    Action::Investigate => 80,
+                    Action::Support => 70,
+                    Action::Ground => 60,
+                },
+                GroundCommand::SpendFreedom => {
+                    if gated {
+                        96
+                    } else {
+                        0
+                    }
+                }
+                GroundCommand::Reveal | GroundCommand::Resolve | GroundCommand::EndRound => -1,
+                _ => 50,
+            }
+        };
+        let mut best = 0usize;
+        for (i, c) in legal.iter().enumerate() {
+            if rank(c) > rank(&legal[best]) {
+                best = i;
+            }
+        }
+        Choice::Command(best)
+    }
+}
+
+fn sweep(
+    name: &str,
+    players: u8,
+    mk: &dyn Fn(u64, u8) -> Vec<Box<dyn Policy>>,
+) -> (u32, u32, u32, u32) {
+    let (mut games, mut won, mut atk, mut darvo) = (0, 0, 0, 0);
+    for seed in 0..200u64 {
+        let Ok(st) = GroundState::setup(
+            &Setup {
+                players,
+                preset: format!("standard-{players}p"),
+                patch: Default::default(),
+            },
+            seed,
+        ) else {
+            continue;
+        };
+        let mut ps = mk(seed, players);
+        let Ok(g) = play(st, &mut ps) else { continue };
+        games += 1;
+        if g.state.outcome.as_ref().is_some_and(|o| o.group_success) {
+            won += 1;
+        }
+        for (_, c) in &g.steps {
+            if let GroundCommand::SelectAction {
+                action: Action::Attack,
+                ..
+            } = c
+            {
+                atk += 1;
+            }
+        }
+        for e in &g.events {
+            if matches!(e, games_ground::GroundEvent::DarvoTriggered { .. }) {
+                darvo += 1;
+            }
+        }
+    }
+    let _ = name;
+    (games, won, atk, darvo)
+}
+
+fn main() {
+    println!("F17: does ATTACK cost you the game, or does our bot just avoid it?\n");
+    // The gradient, not just the extremes: greedy ranks Attack at 10,
+    // below everything. 75 puts it above SUPPORT and below INVESTIGATE --
+    // "attack when convenient". 95 is "attack whenever legal".
+    println!("       rank=10 (greedy)   rank=75 (sometimes)  rank=95 (always)");
+    println!("seats   won  atk darvo     won  atk darvo      won  atk darvo");
+    for players in [2u8, 3, 4, 5, 6] {
+        let cell = |r: i32, p: u8| {
+            sweep("x", p, &move |_s, n| {
+                (0..n)
+                    .map(|_| Box::new(Attacker(r)) as Box<dyn Policy>)
+                    .collect()
+            })
+        };
+        let (_, gw, ga, gd) = sweep("greedy", players, &|_s, p| {
+            (0..p)
+                .map(|_| Box::new(GreedyPolicy) as Box<dyn Policy>)
+                .collect()
+        });
+        let (_, mw, ma, md) = cell(75, players);
+        let (_, aw, aa, ad) = cell(95, players);
+        println!("  {players}p   {gw:>4} {ga:>4} {gd:>5}    {mw:>4} {ma:>4} {md:>5}     {aw:>4} {aa:>4} {ad:>5}");
+    }
+    println!("\n(200 games per cell; greedy shown as the rank=10 column)");
+}

specs/FindingRegister.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
 | F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
 | F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
 | F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
-| F17 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
+| F17 | degenerate | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
 | F18 | inert | raised | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
 | F19 | degenerate | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::overhead_table | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
 | F20 | inert | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::ending_page | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
@@ -128,16 +128,38 @@ kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
   seat-position and single-drop-zone proxies added. **They are proxies.**
   Nothing here lays out a browser, and the gap CB-EV-0026 named — that no
   gate measures whether a player can play — is unclosed.
-- **F17 — no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions.**
-  Reported from play, 2026-08-06: *"there is no incentive to play attacks
-  as long as I have positive cards."* If true, ATTACK is a dead branch for
-  most of a game, which would make GR-A06/A07/A08 and the whole Rivalry
-  half of the relation system reachable only when a player is out of good
-  options. **`note`, not a finding**: no artifact demonstrates it yet. One
-  is cheap — count ATTACK selections across the policy panel and compare
-  against hand quality — and until it exists this may not go to
-  `ground-game` (GameDesign §3.1). **Owner is ground-game if it survives**;
-  it would be a design finding, not an engine one.
+- **F17 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
+  from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
+  positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**:
+  `games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs`, 200 games per cell, one number
+  varied — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy.
+
+  | ATTACK ranked | wins (2/3/4/5/6p) | attacks | DARVO armed |
+  |---|---|---:|---:|
+  | 10 (below all) | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200 | 0 | 0 |
+  | 75 (above SUPPORT) | **132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200** | 315–923 | 13–218 |
+  | 95 (above SOLVE) | **0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 1400–5170 | 400–1000 |
+
+  **The middle row is the finding: identical win counts at every seat
+  count**, while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO. Attacking
+  is not punished — it is **inert with respect to the goal**. Group success
+  is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK only costs anything when it
+  ranks above SOLVE and displaces it.
+
+  **So the maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than the
+  phrasing.** There is no incentive because there is no *path*: ATTACK's
+  effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
+  `group_success`.
+
+  **Bounded to SHARED GROUND.** These are co-op games. Blame costs
+  *personal* score, so ATTACK may well earn its place in GR-E03 and
+  GR-E04 — **which have never been played to the end (F14)**, and that is
+  where this question should be asked next.
+
+  **Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
+  is *about* not falling into; a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
+  design. The question for `ground-game` is whether the namesake mechanic
+  being unreachable in competent co-op play is intended.
 - **F18 — the engine imports one of nineteen edition files, so the cards
   cannot say what they do.** Reported as *"I don't understand the GROUND
   card"* — which is not a design gap: `Actions.csv` carries that card's