The H2 panel measured wins, variance and DARVO but not ATTACK selection —
which is F17's actual question. attack-value now runs H2 too.
The shape is the finding. Under H1 a seat that sometimes attacks loses
everything at 3p and above. Under H2 rank-75 wins 112/173/199 against
greedy's 120/175/199, while attacking and arming DARVO. So H2 makes
occasional ATTACK affordable — it does not make it pay. rank-75 never
beats greedy in any cell, and rank-95 (always attack) still wins 0
everywhere in all three variants, so "not always-attack-optimal" holds.
F17 therefore stands: ATTACK earns its place in no mode. What changed is
that choosing it is no longer catastrophic. Whether affordable is what the
design wants is ground-game's judgement.
And a hazard: with_variant() exists because H2 assigns Problem owners at
setup and `state.variant = v` leaves them unassigned, so scoped pressure
ticks nobody and H2 measures as INERT. Three call sites had the bare
write, including cb-play's driver.
No published figure is affected, and that was checked rather than assumed:
h2-panel used the builder, and the two harnesses with the bare write had
only ever run baseline and H1, neither of which has a setup step; the
driver has never played H2. All three fixed, and
a_bare_variant_write_leaves_h2_inert now states the difference so a
regression is caught by a named test rather than by a reader wondering why
H2 did nothing.
The builder was not enough — the field is public, so the old form still
compiles. Worth knowing before the next variant.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured against ground-game's own §3 criteria, read from their design
note rather than reused from H1.
Criterion 1 met with room: greedy SHARED wins 120 at 3p and 175 at 4p,
against H1's 0 and 0, restoring 73% and 92% of baseline.
Criterion 3 met, and it was H1's clearest failure. Under H1 the
unregulated seat armed DARVO constantly and never won; under H2 it arms
and wins 13/13/57. "Non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins" is
exactly the shape H1 could not produce.
Criterion 2 met at 2p/4p/6p and missed at 3p — 1.50 against baseline's
1.57 — reported as a miss because that is what this sample says. The
mechanism is visible: H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+, because a flat
tax on every seat creates no variance at all. That is the clearest
statement of why scoping was the right correction.
Criterion 5 is the best evidence in the pass. Forcing every scope to
global and changing nothing else reproduces H1's collapse exactly — 120 to
0 at 3p, 175 to 0 at 4p — so the scoping is what saves it, not any other
difference between the packages.
Criterion 4 came out backwards and the prediction held. The workplan said
this panel might be unable to test it, because no policy here models
another seat or knows what a scope is; bond claim rates are LOWER than
personal at 3p and 4p, driven by suit availability rather than incentive.
Reported as untested with an incidental figure pointing the wrong way,
not as a refutation.
Wired into make panels. First pass declared after ADR-0021, so no chaos
roll is recorded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
