ADR-0011 decided it: vendor the CSV with a checked digest, read it with
a ~50-line reader, and let the hashes move.
The declaration's constraint was measured against the WRONG BUDGET. It
said a CSV crate costs 21,613 against AM-4a's 3,798 of headroom, '5.7x
over, settled by measurement'. But setup and problem_priorities are
cfg(scenarios) and are not in the shipped runtime at all, so AM-4a never
sees them. Against AM-4b, csv costs 17,651 against 19,742 -- it FITS,
with 2,091 to spare. It is refused anyway, on proportion: 89% of the
budget's remaining capacity to read 20 rows. The revisit condition is
stated (nested quoting, embedded newlines, multiple dialects).
GR-S01 now deals Surface + hidden 1..=k as ruled, with edition values and
suits. Measured: 6/9/12 available against thresholds 5/7/9 -- the game is
winnable at every seat count, which is what the maintainer could not do.
gd0001 is INVERTED, not deleted, and now also asserts the 6/9/12 so a
deal that is reachable for the wrong reason still fails.
Blast radius was scenario expectations, exactly as the ADR predicted: no
scenario pinned a hash and no bundle is committed. Six scenarios and two
unit tests updated, each with a note. gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p is
RENAMED to -reachable- and rewritten as the non-provisional import check
ground-game asked for by name. gr-e03's setup was restructured, not just
renumbered: with values 2,2,2 its personal-edge test would have tied
three ways and asserted nothing.
BLOCKING: AM-7 fails at median 0.845 against its 0.9 floor. Isolated
across three runs -- 3 problems + stand-in 0.97, 3 problems + edition
0.909, 4 problems + edition 0.845. State is BOUNDED (proven: identical
after 5k and 100k events), so this is not the unbounded-growth defect
AM-7 exists to catch; it is a bigger working set streaming a long log.
Whether AM-7's floor is still right for a larger aggregate is a spec
question and lowering it requires an ADR, so it is not being tuned here.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Implements ground-game's ruling of 2026-08-03. make all exits 0, 26
scenarios, rule coverage 59/59, and no scenario encoded the bug.
The rule ended up somewhere other than where I put it, and a gate moved
it. It went into legal_commands first; the AM-1 coverage gate then
demanded a scenario for the new GR-P05, and scenarios drive validate, not
the offer layer. A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for
clients that ask what is legal -- the browser would be filtered and a
scenario file would walk straight past it. Once GR-P05 moved into
validate, every condition in legal_commands was dead code, and the
layering test said so in those words.
And the reported case was not the one I reported. CB-WP-0018 and the
message to ground-game described SOLVE offered on a FACE-DOWN Problem.
Measured: validate already rejected face-down, so it never was offered.
Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal -- the
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the HAND case, holding no Clarify
for a Clarify Problem. The ruling covers both so nothing is invalidated,
but the record was wrong.
Four conditions asserted separately, because one 'SOLVE is filtered' test
would pass with three of four implemented.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
