Eight profiles on a common schema, each marking what was checked against a
source this session and what is background recollection. Three are marked
unverified in full — Machinations, the play substrates, most of RBG — and
say so rather than reading as evaluations. Written straight after three
review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what had been
checked, so the confidence rule is the first thing in the README.
The survey changed the plan, which is what a survey is for.
Track C was described in Positioning as open ground. It is not: Browne
published 57 criteria for game quality, and Ai Ai already computes
designer-facing measures — drama, lead changes, branching factor,
completion, duration — from played games. The track becomes adopt, credit
and find the gap. The gap looks real: those measures presume a leader, and
SHARED GROUND has none — Modes.csv gives its tiebreak as "Not applicable".
Track B probably adopts rather than builds. OpenSpiel implements CFR,
best-response and exploitability over games that are simultaneous-move,
imperfect-information and co-operative, which is all four of GROUND's
awkward properties. "Does ATTACK ever pay" is a best-response question,
and we spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it. The
first Track B task is now one question — is exploitability meaningful for
a co-operative game with a shared threshold — not a build.
The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable, and is recorded
rather than glossed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The maintainer could not tell whether "error", "failure", "finding" or
"correction" referred to the game's design, our formalisation of it, the
code, the measuring apparatus, or the sentences we wrote. Three review
rounds produced twenty-odd defect statements spanning five systems, all
called errors. The confusion was ours.
specs/Taxonomy.md, grounded in named canon rather than invented here: six
strata from Sargent's problem entity / conceptual model / computerized
model, extended where a simulation-V&V frame stops — we also own an
instrument and an account. The two relations are what was missing:
GAME<->MODEL is validation, MODEL<->ENGINE is verification, and nearly
every argument about "our bug or their gap" was that distinction going
unnamed.
Fault/error/failure from Avizienis et al., applied within a stratum, plus
the rule that explains the review history: a failure in one stratum is a
fault in the next. And it finally defines the family ADR-0018 could only
point at — a wrong-subject error is an ACCOUNT failure with no INSTRUMENT
fault, which is why tests never catch them.
MDA supplies the game-facing layers and one hard limit: our panels measure
dynamics, our trial logs sample aesthetics, and a win rate does not answer
"is it fun".
specs/Positioning.md names the field fairly — Ludii is the closest
relative and the right benchmark — and the four differentiators, each
already built rather than aspired to. Clay-borg is a design-evidence
instrument; anyone can produce the number. Three tracks named and none
started: a second game, game theory as the lens on dynamics, and
assimilated knowledge about why games work.
Track A is the falsifier for the whole positioning: every abstraction here
has exactly one instance, which by our own rule may mean invented rather
than observed.
Chaos window 3 closes at 12 declarations with one override that changed
nothing. Its verdict is due and is deliberately not written here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
one clause short
Nine decisions. Two were not on T03's list; both are the review's.
D2: specs/GroundRules.md §Underdetermined IS the register. C4 pointed out
it was never evaluated as a candidate, and against the survey's own five
benchmarks it already delivers four -- including the Magic Oracle property
("a ruling flips the scenario, not the kernel", :231-233) that the survey
travelled to Magic to discover and we had written down ourselves eight
days earlier. What it lacks is reproductions. So this pass extends a
section rather than building a register: no new file, no new schema, and
no second mechanism to disagree with the first.
D3: admissibility is three clauses. It exists; it has the ruled shape
(GROUND-WP-0004 T02's row-level table, never a sum -- promoted from a T04
addendum because two of three wrong premises were sums without tables);
and it CAN FAIL. The third is C1's. GR-E01's scenario went green when the
edition landed, and the finding stayed admissible and stayed queued for
transmission, because nothing in the rule said a passing artifact was a
signal. A green reproduction is an alarm, not a reassurance.
D1 applied: INTENT gains a fourth property, Instrument, worded as a
mechanism rather than an ambition and carrying its own falsifier -- if a
pass tolerates an undecided rule by quietly picking a default, the
property is false.
D4 five kinds, each forced by an existing finding; a sixth during backfill
means the taxonomy was invented. D5 lifecycle where `applied` means the
source changed, the queue empties while the log accumulates, and
withdrawals are reported rather than deleted -- GR-E01 is why. D6 notes
admitted but never reportable, 30-day expiry on the existing age
machinery; refusing them would discard the only class of finding the
engine cannot produce itself, which is CB-WP-0025's whole input. D7 no
engine-evolution register, on an inventory C5 corrected -- narrowed, not
settled. D8 design-baseline.py retired, kept as a dated snapshot because
deleting it erases the evidence for how 33% got in. D9 the artifact stays
here, ground-game gets a generated file under its own workplan.
loop-lint: no findings. facts-check: no findings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Provenance (tier M, structural S, chaos d4=4 -> OVERRIDE drawn M):
the maintainer could drag after CB-WP-0016 but could not tell what was
pickable, held, or droppable. Underneath that, the page was WRONG about
which moves exist: 9 legal commands rendered as 5 cards each claiming
all three target kinds, from a const string in the emitter. Investigate
is legal on problems 2 and 3 but not 1; Solve on 1 but not 2 or 3. The
live page now says 'Solve onto problem 1'.
ADR-0010 restates control 5, which this work would otherwise have
outgrown in silence: every game fact the page acts on must arrive from
Rust as data; the script may read, match and render it, never compute,
infer, filter or default one. The survey's real finding is that the
permitted and forbidden designs are indistinguishable from outside, so
the vocabulary grep is demoted to a cheap first line and two behavioural
properties become the controls -- the highlighted set EQUALS the set
Rust emitted, and anything the page marks legal must resolve. Both
mutation-proven; the derive-legality mutation produces a plausible
highlight (seat-0,1,2 where only seat-1 is legal) and is caught.
Visible now: .pick resting shadow, .held on the grabbed element, .dropok
on every legal target including BOTH drawings of a seat, and a ghost
following the pointer. Nothing perceptual is verified and ADR-0010 D5
says so.
The DOM stub now models classList/querySelectorAll/createElement and
builds its node set from the real emitted page. Trap recorded: QuickJS
fixes its stack limit at Context creation relative to that frame, so a
helper returning a Context makes every later eval report
'SyntaxError: stack overflow'.
CHAOS WINDOW CLOSED, 12 declarations, 2 overrides, one each way. Both
changed the outcome, so the retirement condition is not met. Verdict:
keep, and recommend d4 -> d8 with a second window of 12 -- that is a
change to the loop's own constraints and is owed to the next declaration
as tier-M work, not made here.
CB-EV-0014 corrected: it quoted CB-WP-0015 at $15.14/136 and called it
the first settled figure quoted. Now $22.70/166. The number had been
read during CB-WP-0015 itself, so there are two defects -- the boundary,
and quoting from memory instead of re-running the instrument.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Provenance (tier S, one paragraph in lieu of survey and ADR): the human
check that kept INTENT stage 1 open was run and the drag was broken.
Root cause, worth more than the instance: drop targets were ids, and an
id must be unique, so exactly one element could ever be seat-0. The
relationship-graph circle took it and the seat card that every action
card's own text points at -- 'drag Attack onto a seat' -- silently had
none. A seat is drawn twice and both drawings are the seat; the document
model could not express that.
Drop keys are now data-drop. Any number of elements may carry the same
key, so a seat is droppable on its card and on its graph node. Measured
on a live server: seat-0/1/2 each appear twice, id survives only on
cb-status which is the one element the script looks up, and
down=action-attack&up=seat-1 returns ok.
Second defect: a drop on nothing returned without posting and without
touching the status line, so a broken target was indistinguishable from
a working page. resolve already refuses rather than defaulting, which is
right; refusing SILENTLY is not. The page now reports the raw fact --
'took action-attack, let go over nothing droppable' -- which names
elements, not moves, so ADR-0007 control 5 holds.
And the honest part: the general check added here -- every offered
affordance names a key that exists, driven through Policy::choose over
four real bot games -- does NOT catch the reported defect. seat-0 did
exist, on the graph circle. It is kept because a wholly absent target is
a real class, and paired with a targeted regression test that does catch
it. Three mutations, each red for its stated reason, including the
reported defect reintroduced; only the targeted test fires on that one.
A cb-play assertion matched id="action-ground" as a substring while
describing itself as checking the page; rewritten through drop_keys.
make all exits 0. Stage 1 stays open: verified by tests, mutation and a
live server, not by a human dragging.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0012. Stage 1, deliverable by deliverable:
relationship-graph visualization emitted and gated, NEVER SEEN
drag-to-propose evidenced end to end
debug inspector evidenced (CB-WP-0011)
hot-seat play evidenced here
Hot-seat was the one closest to being claimed on the strength of the code
path existing. SeatPolicy hands every human seat a handle on one shared
Server, so turn-taking "obviously" worked — and nothing drove more than
one seat until now. The property that matters is not that two turns
happen but that the same tab, asked twice, shows two different hands.
Mutating the projection to serve P1's view to every seat turns it red.
The stage stays open on ONE named blocker rather than a vague
reservation: no browser is available to this loop, so the visualization
is evidenced only as correctly emitted. Everything testable from here has
been tested. What remains is `cb-play --serve 0`, open the URL, confirm
the table reads and a drag works. INTENT carries that note now.
The self-quoting rule from CB-EV-0011 §4 is ADOPTED: an evidence file
quotes the previous pass's final cost and never its own. CB-WP-0013
reported itself at $5.78/34 mid-flight; final is $8.26/47, under by 43%.
Four for four, always low.
Meta budget 29% [OVER] soft 25%, driven by CB-WP-0013 in a trailing three
with two cheap product passes; it was an instrument repair, which
ADR-0006 D2 exempts.
SH-1 at 347,720 [HARD] against a 300,000 ceiling. Compaction is the
remedy and this session cannot do it for itself. CB-EV-0009's standing
prediction is now live and testable for the first time in three passes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
