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>
H2 is ground-game's answer to our H1 reading — that a flat +1 to every
seat is a solve-rate tax scaling with the number of Problems. Unclaimed
Problems now tick only the seats in scope: global (all), personal (the
owner), bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges only, degree 0
falling back to personal), assigned by hidden priority so 2p never has the
bond card in play.
T01: the package is vendored with digests, and H2's Problems.csv is r0's
with one column added and NOTHING else changed — checked, not assumed,
because the delta claims deal_and_thresholds unchanged and a silent
difference would make every H2-vs-baseline comparison a comparison of two
boards as well as two rule sets. Scopes are read from the column, not
derived from the priority in Rust: F25 exists because we hardcoded numbers
the edition already carried.
T02: owner and scope are new ProblemState fields, both Option and both
skipped when None, so a baseline state serialises without them and every
recorded scenario's hash is untouched — asserted on the JSON, not assumed.
with_variant() replaces the bare field write, because state.variant = v
would leave owners unassigned: a silently wrong game rather than a failing
one.
T03: every named defect is mutation-proven — traversing Rivalry edges,
applying stacking once, a degree-0 owner ticking everyone, personal
hitting everyone. The degree-0 mutation MISSED first: the fallback lives
inside bond_network and the mutation broke the None-owner arm instead, a
different branch. It stayed green until aimed at the path the test
exercises. A mutation that misses is not evidence the test works.
T04: ownership is not a permission. Filtering SOLVE to the owner turns it
red, which is the regression this task exists for — the engine had no
owner concept before T02 added one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before
anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange
format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already
have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and
project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps
remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both
assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no
port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so
T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control
includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption
unsound as it stands.
0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1
reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global,
personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges
only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so
2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1.
H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2
overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an
include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching
the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls
name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying
stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently
becoming a permission to SOLVE.
Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict
is still owed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
