ModuleAwarePolicy reads the resolved Rules, so 'a bot that does not
attend to a mechanism cannot test claims about it' no longer holds for
modules. The MODE half stands: no policy models a rival playing their
objective, and that is the whole of what keeps F27 open.
Recorded the second limit found while closing the first: the scope term
is inert at round-one positions, so any measurement of
problem_stress.scoped weighted toward early rounds is measuring a
mechanism that has not started.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ModuleAwarePolicy reads the RESOLVED Rules -- one policy, not one per
module. H2AwarePolicy would have been the blob schema 2 exists to
retire, rebuilt a layer up; reading Rules means a two-module
configuration gets both terms and a future module is one arm here rather
than a new policy per combination.
Two terms, both reading the table: prefer the Problem whose Stress falls
on me (problem_stress.scoped), and treat ATTACK as a Stress tool at the
gate (attack_relief.self_soothe_ge4). stress_scope and the owner marker
are public regardless of the card's face -- the H2 rules place the
marker ON the card -- so it is blind by construction.
THE CONTROL I CLAIMED WAS REAL WAS VACUOUS, AND MUTATION SAID SO.
"Under the baseline the two must be identical" swept fresh deals across
36 combinations, and forcing the scope term to fire regardless of
configuration left it GREEN. At a fresh deal only the Surface Problem is
face up, so exactly one SOLVE is legal and no ranking term can move the
argmax. The control could not distinguish the property from its
negation.
Both tests now use a BUILT position -- two face-up, unclaimed, equally
valuable Problems differing only in scope -- under H2 for divergence and
under the baseline for the control. The mutation goes red there.
That is also a finding about the module: the scope term is INERT at
round-one positions, so anything measuring H2 with round-one-heavy play
is measuring a mechanism that has not started. Recorded, not tuned away.
Also: CB-WP-0048 was `active` with every task closed; loop-lint's
lifecycle rule caught it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The spec is explicit: a WORKPLAN is active|done|paused; in_progress is a
TASK status. I used the task vocabulary on the workplan frontmatter, and
the hub rejected both with a 422 on every sync.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
objective() reads GroundState::score (now public) rather than restating
what winning is; a copy in the bot would disagree with the kernel the
first time ground-game rules on F28.
Working out WHERE the modes can differ was most of the task and it
bounds the result: SOLVE always claims for the actor, so own-score and
group-score want the same SOLVE nearly everywhere. That is a fact about
GROUND's action set, not a shortcoming of the bot. Two real divergences,
both readable off the table: SUPPORT regulates someone else (worth less
against a rival, worth MORE under coalitions where a Bond merges them
into my side), and SOLVE's value is the card's value, which greedy
ignores entirely.
THE RESULT — F27 splits in two:
group success UNCHANGED in 34 of 36 cells
who wins MOVES: BONDED COALITIONS at 4p goes 2.04 -> 2.98,
2.12 -> 3.29, 2.05 -> 3.01 winning seats per game
So "the competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play" was
too strong and is withdrawn. The sharper claim: GROUND's scoring modes
change WHO WINS, not WHETHER THE GROUP SUCCEEDS. And the effect is
seat-band dependent -- 2p none, 4p largest, 6p none under coalitions;
two relation slots capping network growth is a candidate explanation and
is untested.
The panel now prints BOTH policies side by side. That was a correction
mid-task: the first version printed only the new one and I compared it
against a figure remembered from CB-WP-0047 -- a comparison against a
board nobody re-ran.
Control that makes the numbers mean anything: under SHARED GROUND the
two policies agree at all but <=2 decision points across 12 boards, so a
moving column is mode-awareness and not simply a different bot.
Also: two T01 tests keyed on `status: proposed`, which ground-game
renamed to `ready-for-implement` mid-session. They now find the module
by asking resolve() -- the structural property is ours and does not move
when another repo edits its vocabulary.
Also: `make vendor` replaces three hand re-vendors with a tool that
regenerates digests by walking editions/, and reports one-sided files
rather than resolving them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Policy::choose takes the whole GroundState -- every face-down Problem's
suit and value, every seat's hand -- which is exactly what project()
exists to withhold. No shipped policy reads it, but the first thing a
competitive policy must do is VALUE a Problem, and value is the hidden
field. The trap goes live on the first line of the F27 work.
Established behaviourally rather than by narrowing the trait: vary only
what the seat cannot see, and the choice must not move. That binds every
policy including ones written later and outside this crate, without
their cooperation. The mirror of ADR-0013 D1 -- same kernel, two
searches, opposite permissions, discriminated by WHEN the question is
asked; a policy plays from inside an information set, so retrospective
permission would be strategy fusion.
Running the control found two defects IN THE CONTROL:
1. The rearrangements rotated hidden values 2<->3 together, leaving max
invariant -- so the deliberate peeker, which ranks by the largest
hidden value, was not caught. A control whose variation is invariant
under the statistic a violator reads is not a control.
2. It accused `random` of peeking, because it reused one policy instance
and compared a first call against a fourth. It takes a constructor
now, so every variant is judged from identical policy state.
Both are a difference in output read as evidence about hidden state --
the wrong-subject family, found twice inside a control written to detect
wrong subjects.
Three mutations, three red. The control is proven against a deliberate
violator before being trusted about compliant policies.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
