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>
- GR-R09: after Round 5's End the game ends and scoring runs instead of
the round advancing.
- GR-E01: claimed Problems sum their printed values against the
player-count threshold (2p 5, 3-4p 7, 5-6p 9 in dataset 0.1).
- GR-E02 SHARED GROUND: shared score, Mastery reduced per Blame token
and per Denied Problem.
- GR-E03 COMMON PROBLEM: personal score is claimed value less Blame,
tiebroken by lower Stress then more Bonds.
- GR-E04 BONDED COALITIONS: connected components over Bonds only, so
Rivalries do not connect and an unbonded player is a coalition of
one; tiebroken by lower combined Stress then fewer Blame.
Ties yield every tied candidate rather than an arbitrary pick, which is
what "shared victory" in GR-E03/E04 asks for.
AM-1 rule coverage is now 58/58 (100%), 21 scenarios, 17 tests.
Caveat recorded rather than papered over: GR-E02's "successes" is not
defined in dataset 0.1. It is implemented as the count of claimed
Problems and both scoring scenarios are marked provisional, so a
ground-game ruling flips a scenario rather than the kernel.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
