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>

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