ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as
the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional
scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0
of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two
days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is
what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four
other things.
That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it
appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that
was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an
unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied
ruling looks exactly like work in progress.
Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones
verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's
consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by
ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed.
Register queue 9 -> 0.
T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered,
nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our
own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game.
I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts
consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it
exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible
from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth
instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item
is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims --
and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when
two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a
claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have
provisional scenarios" stand.
Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken
the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing
their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item
to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a
diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project
should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row
from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to
its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it
is no longer a reporting tool.
ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until
declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd
encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing.
DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the
loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's
substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but
the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named
itself.
make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five scenarios encoded U-item defaults with no owner and no review date,
so they could shape the kernel indefinitely while looking handled.
Each now carries provisional_owner and provisional_raised, and the
runtime's ScenarioFile learned both fields (deny_unknown_fields meant
adding them to YAML alone would have failed every scenario -- the parser
had to agree).
make coverage reports every provisional item with its owner and age in
days, warns on any with no owner, and warns past 30 days. It WARNS
rather than breaking the build, on purpose: the ruling is ground-game's
to make and the kernel cannot make it for them. What the loop can
enforce is that evidence files list them, which is now stated in
GroundRules.
rule-coverage --self-test gained an assertion that every provisional
item has both fields, so the next one added without them fails a
command rather than passing quietly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fills in resolution steps 1, 4 and 6 (GR-R06):
- GR-R05 mode choice: a player who revealed GROUND picks GR/OU/ND after
Reveal. Resolution refuses to start while any revealed GROUND lacks a
mode, and only that player may choose it.
- GR-A10 GROUND-GR: self -2 Stress and Freedom readied.
- GR-A01 INVESTIGATE: reveal the chosen hidden non-Denied Problem, then
draw one Solution; the draw still happens when nothing is revealable.
- GR-A02 SOLVE: spend a Solution of the Problem's suit and claim it; a
later resolver the same round spends nothing, per Lead order.
- GR-A13 tightened: INVESTIGATE must target a hidden Problem, SOLVE a
face-up non-Denied one. Previously any existing Problem was accepted.
Deck exhaustion (U4) reshuffles the discard, seeded from the game seed
and round so validate stays a pure function of state. The resulting
order travels inside DeckReshuffled, so replay never re-derives it.
Still pending, each because it needs its own decision command rather
than a default: GROUND-OU and GROUND-ND three-way choices (GR-A11/A12)
and the DARVO stage machine (GR-D02..D07). No scenario claims coverage
of them.
Filler picks in existing scenarios moved from GROUND to INVESTIGATE:
GROUND now has a real Stress effect, which was polluting the Support
and Attack assertions.
11 scenarios pass, 34 rules covered; 17 tests, fmt/clippy green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Round machinery, system-driven (GR-R04/R06/R08):
- GR-R06 fixed step order with GR-R07 Lead-first ordering inside a step.
Steps 1 (GROUND), 3 (DARVO stages), 4 (INVESTIGATE) and 6 (SOLVE) are
not implemented yet; their Actions resolve as no-ops and no scenario
claims coverage of them.
- SUPPORT GR-A03/A04/A05 and ATTACK GR-A06..A09, with relation
formation, flip and break per GR-L01/L03/L04 and Protection
cancellation.
- GR-R08 End: DARVO trigger at Stress 5 in Lead order, Lead rotation,
Round advance, per-round flags cleared.
- Stress clamps 0-5 on every application, the U2 default, so a mid-round
spike that is reduced before End does not trigger DARVO.
Two consent-dependent rules are deliberately left out because they need
a decision command rather than a default: Bond formation (GR-L02) and
the target's flip-or-break choice on Support-through-Rivalry (GR-A05).
Both are noted in code and covered by a provisional scenario.
Fixes a defect in the T07 scaffold: relations were keyed by a tuple,
which JSON cannot use as an object key, so state_hash would have
panicked on any state holding a relation. Relation keys are now a Pair
newtype serialized as "a-b", with a regression test.
setup.patch may now create a final key so scenarios can seed open-ended
maps; a typo anywhere earlier in the path is still an error.
8 scenarios pass, 28 rules covered; 17 tests, fmt/clippy green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
