12 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53109ec5e5 |
CB-WP-0037 T02: the engine's rules against the edition's
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
Vendored DARVO.csv, Relations.csv and Scenarios.csv — the three unread files that carry mechanism. The engine has implemented the DARVO sequence and relation formation/breaking from GroundRules.md since the beginning, and had never read the game owner's statement of them. Every checkable clause agrees, and agreement is recorded rather than noted: a survey that finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one never run. The two hardest clauses to notice were already right — Focus placed "even if the Attack was cancelled", and Focus removed when the sequence ends before REVERSE. The tests are tripwires, not derivations. The match was made by a person reading prose, and that reading goes stale in silence when the prose changes; each behaviour pins the phrase it was read from, so a reworded edition goes red and asks for a human. Mutation-proven by rewording the cancelled-Attack clause. F25 raised, and it is the real yield: Scenarios.csv carries threshold_2_players/3_4/5_6, starting_stress and round_track, and the engine hardcodes all three — a match returning 5/7/9, stress: 2 at setup, five rounds. They agree on all four scenarios. These are the most contested numbers in the project; the whole 4/6/9 vs 5/7/9 episode turned on them, and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading the file that owns them. Also pinned: Problems.csv and Scenarios.csv both state the deal and the engine reads only the first. They agree; nothing was checking. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| e5b805c185 |
CB-WP-0037 T01: F18 gets a reproduction, and F24 falls out of it
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
F18 was the only open finding clay-borg owns, the only register row lacking a reproduction, and the only off-target metric. It is also understated: it reads as display data, but among the 14 unvendored files are DARVO.csv (mandatory_effect, advance), Relations.csv (formation, breaking) and Scenarios.csv — rules the engine already implements from a secondary source and has never checked against the primary one. The reproduction records column reads AT THE ACCESSOR rather than counting them from the source: a list beside the code would be a second copy of a fact the get calls already carry, and grepping would over-count because six column names are shared between vendored files. The first version was wrong in this repo's signature way — it watched Table::at only, so it called visibility, required_solution and point_value unread when the engine reads all three through problems_of's own index lookups. Correct about the accessor, wrong about the engine: the ADR-0018 family, committed inside the artifact built to measure it. Problems.csv went 7/13 to 10/13 once the manual reader was recorded too. F24 raised: solution_deck() is a Rust literal that never opens Solutions.csv. It agrees today, which is the point — the engine is right by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading. Role `default`, with a test that goes red the moment either side moves. open, lacking a reproduction: 1 -> 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| a9978c7a91 |
ADR-0017: window 2's verdict — the mechanism worked, my account of it did
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
not Tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation), declared at d8 because the rate for window 3 is what this document decides and declaring at a rate it invents would be circular. chaos d8 = 7, no override. I CLAIMED WINDOW 2 PRODUCED ZERO OVERRIDES, FIVE TIMES, AND IT IS FALSE. Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, overrode, drew S against a structural S, and changed nothing -- and CB-WP-0020 recorded it correctly at the time, in those words: "the first override at d8... It changed nothing... One." Counting the workplans takes one command and I never ran it. CB-EV-0024 asserted "zero" without checking; CB-EV-0025, 0026, 0027 and CB-WP-0029 each cited the one before. A claim propagated five times by citation rather than by measurement, in files whose subject was that exact failure. facts-check catches a copied number that disagrees with its source; nothing catches a number with NO source, asserted once and repeated. Registered F23, and all four evidence files carry an in-place correction rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5). THE ACTUAL VERDICT: THE RATE IS WORKING. Eleven rolls at d8 -- declaration 1 opened the window at the old d4 -- against 1.375 eights expected, 1 observed. Not a shortage of evidence; the design. BUT THE RETIREMENT CONDITION GENUINELY CANNOT FIRE, and that took computing to see. "An override changes nothing twice running" needs a consecutive pair at P=1/3 each, so ~12 overrides expected, at ~1.4 per window: ~9 windows, roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out on any realistic horizon is decoration, which ADR-0006 D3 forbids. Restated to be evaluated PER WINDOW: retire if a full window's overrides all change nothing, met in two consecutive windows. A window with no overrides is inconclusive and advances nothing. ~24 declarations rather than ~100. Window 2 counts as the first; window 3 opens at d8 and decides. Recorded and deliberately not acted on: declarations 5-9 rolled six five times running, ~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven rolls. shuf tested over 200 rapid successive calls looks uniform, longest run three. Found post hoc, which is how coincidences become findings, so it is logged for a future window to check rather than treated as evidence. InnerLoop.md then crossed the loadability limit, and so did InnerLoopReference.md. The window log moved to specs/ChaosRollHistory.md: it grows by one entry per window, and a log inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference. make all: exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 302fc95c97 |
GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end — F14 closed, and the reason they were
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
unplayed was ours Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from CB-WP-0029's roll, no override). cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver, so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach the thing it was about. --mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone (top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2). Same 37 commands, three answers. AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode: SHARED GROUND 132/165/190/200 -> identical free but pointless COMMON PROBLEM 59/52/48/44 -> 59/52/48/34 a cost at six seats BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34 roughly halved The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted. GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04 degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out. F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your score. Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended. make all: exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| f4eeddd726 |
25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
says Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches 5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no over-claimed Problems. But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN 25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games. THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks `Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's behaviour presented as the game's. So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy, 200 games per cell. rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218 rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000 THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count, while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks above SOLVE and displaces it. The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing: there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success. Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in competent co-op play is intended. F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving reproduction. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 631fb41fc2 |
CB-WP-0029 T01-T03: components you can count, and a supply that does not bind
ADR-0016, Tokens.csv vendored, tracks and discs on the table, and a supply audit that found nothing and says so. T03 MEASURED BEFORE T01 DECIDED. 750 games, 2-6 seats, greedy and random: Protection reaches 1 per seat and 2 on the table against a supply of 6; Denied 3 of 5; relation links EXACTLY 12 OF 12 and never more; Focus/Blame 0 conflicts. The link row is the interesting one -- GR-L01's two-slot rule IS the twelve-token supply written twice, which is the shape of a supply needing no separate enforcement. AND THE FIRST VERSION OF THE FOCUS/BLAME CHECK WAS WRONG. It compared a seat's own placed Focus against its OWN blame_from -- but that list holds OTHER players' discs, so they are different tokens. It reported 2 conflicts; corrected, it reports 0. Fifth instance of this project's recurring defect, a number computed correctly about the wrong subject, and the first caught before it left the repo rather than by a reviewer. D2: a token is a VIEW, not a type. The aggregate gains no `Token` -- adding one would create a second source of truth for Stress, and the first time they disagreed the bug would be invisible because both would look internally consistent. D3: quantity does NOT bind, and the reason is not the measurement. A component limit the rules do not state is not a rule. Refusing a seventh Protection token would enforce something nobody ruled -- CB-WP-0023's error inverted: SOLVE was OFFERED where it could not act; this would REFUSE where the rules allow. The check ships as a standing control, so a future violation becomes a question for ground-game (does the box bound the game, or do the rules?) rather than a bound the engine invented. Registered as F22, withdrawn: a stated negative, because a survey that finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one never run. D4: Stress on a 0-5 track that turns red at 5 where DARVO arms, DARVO on OFF/DENY/ATTACK/REVERSE, Freedom as the two-sided disc the edition says it is, Protection and Blame counted, Lead and Round on the table. Two tests broke on token discs and both were FIXTURE defects: seat_centres matched every <circle> and track stops are circles. Seats now carry class="seat". The table height limit went 460 -> 500 as a CORRECTION, not a concession. 460 had no derivation; 500 does -- ~800px viewport less ~120 header and ~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging was 620. CB-WP-0021 T06's rule is to fix the measurement rather than lower the floor, and an underived number is a measurement defect. make all: exit 0. 66 render tests, 26 cb-play. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| b12725566b |
fix: a click target wearing a drag affordance made the controls look dead
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Tier S (a fix inside a boundary; chaos d8=7 from the previous roll stands
for this continuation). Two observations from play that are ONE defect.
`play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move buttons carried `.pick`,
which is cursor:grab. The stylesheet has .btn{cursor:pointer} BEFORE
.pick{cursor:grab}, so grab won.
A GRAB CURSOR INVITES A DRAG. A drag released over nothing posts nothing,
so the player picked up the button, let go, and the page did nothing. It
looked dead because the affordance told them to do the one thing that does
not work. Reported as two separate things -- "the button shows a hand to
pick up that it probably shouldn't" and "I can't start another game or
stop the server" -- and the first causes the second.
The click path itself was never broken: driving again->again and
done->done through the JS harness posts correctly. The logic was fine and
the invitation was wrong.
Click targets now carry `.tap` -- pointer cursor, same press affordance.
This extends CB-WP-0017's rule (interactive and inert must not look
identical) to: click and drag must not look identical either. The test
asserts both directions, because checking only that buttons lost `.pick`
would pass for a page with no affordances at all.
Registered F20 (applied) and F21.
F21 IS THE ONE I COULD NOT REPRODUCE: dragging did not work until after
the first note was saved. Ruled out the plausible mechanisms -- the
gesture logic posts correctly against the served page, the drag ghost
carries pointer-events:none so it cannot intercept the drop, and the
markup is identical before and after since the 303 re-renders the same
page from the same state. Remaining candidates are a <details> toggle
shifting layout mid-drag, a first-load timing difference, or browser-level
pointer capture. Reproducing it needs a browser, which no test here has --
the same gap F19 named. Recorded as unreproduced rather than given a
speculative fix.
And the fourth observation is confirmation, not a bug: "drawing my cards
from the deck is not implemented, I did not need to do that" is exactly
what CB-WP-0028 T04 determined and deliberately did not build. It is the
first evidence that importing the card text closed the comprehension gap
that produced the earlier click-the-deck request.
make all: exit 0. 62 render tests, 26 cb-play.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| a6e7acd4cf |
Register F19: the engine shipped a table nobody could play on
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
CB-WP-0028's overhead view was 620px tall, so the action cards sat a screen below the Problems and dragging between them was physically impossible. Seats were drawn inside the table; the `table` drop target was a card among the buttons rather than the drawn surface. make all passed throughout. Every test asserted the DOM was correct -- which it was -- and the JS harness posts a correct gesture against a page a human cannot drag on. Kind `degenerate`: it fires and collapses play. State `applied`: fixed the same day, with height, seat-position and single-drop-zone proxies added. They are PROXIES -- nothing here lays out a browser, and the gap CB-EV-0026 named a day earlier is unclosed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 02402c36b2 |
CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Nine observations from the maintainer's session. Two are about the game and go to the register; seven are about the engine and are this workplan. F18 IS THE ONE THAT REFRAMES THE PASS. "I don't understand the GROUND card" reads as a design problem. It is not: Actions.csv carries that card's own tagline -- "Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide." -- and its full rules text, and clay-borg never imported it. We vendored ONE OF NINETEEN edition files. Everything else the engine knows is a hand-transcription into GroundRules.md's 59 numbered rules, which is enough to PLAY the game and gives a player nothing to READ. The page shows `Clarify` where the card says "Ask What Happened -- Invite a concrete account before judging." Registered as `inert`: the data exists and cannot fire, because nothing reads it. Found by a player saying he did not understand something. Rule coverage is 59/59 and has been for weeks. F17: no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions. Registered as a NOTE, not a finding -- no artifact demonstrates it, and under GameDesign §3.1 it may not go to ground-game until one exists. One is cheap (count ATTACK selections across the policy panel against hand quality). Owner is ground-game if it survives, since it would be a design finding. The workplan (M, chaos d8=1, no override, declaration 11 of window 2) carries the seven engine observations. Two tasks are deliberately shaped against past mistakes: T01 must decide whether ADR-0011's hand-rolled CSV reader survives Solutions.csv, whose microcopy and rules_text are prose with commas and quotes -- ADR-0011 named exactly that as its revisit condition, so if the reader cannot parse them the dependency argument gets re-run rather than a fragile parser written. T04 must first establish whether "click the deck to draw" is a legal move at all. GR-A01 draws as part of INVESTIGATE; the deck is not a thing a player may take from. If it is not legal, that is a FINDING for ground-game -- the maintainer expected an interaction the rules do not offer -- and not a feature. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered where it could not act. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 7ed9fc730a |
CB-WP-0025 T06/T07: a difficulty baseline that reports its own confound
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
T06. games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs, make difficulty, wired into make self-tests, and a report file in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0005 with a hub message pointing at it. THE REPORT OPENS WITH THE RETRACTION, because what this task was written to send was withdrawn by T02 and GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly that number. They are told, in the first section, that we nearly sent them "the game is too easy at 5-6 seats" and why it was wrong. seats winnable greedy random first-legal spread 2p 60% 60.0% 5.0% 76.7% 71.7 3p 93% 88.3% 6.7% 25.0% 81.7 4p 100% 93.3% 6.7% 30.0% 86.7 5p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 6p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 SPREAD justifies the whole redesign: 71.7 to 100.0 points between three trivial policies. The table now shows why no single rate is a difficulty rather than asserting it. And the 5-6 rows point the OPPOSITE way from the withdrawn claim -- first-legal 0% against greedy 100% is the widest spread in the table, which suggests play matters MORE there, not less. Neither reading is established and the report says so. The confound is stated in the tool's own output, not only in prose: `winnable` is conditioned on greedy's play up to the final round, because searching from round 1 is unaffordable. Presenting it as a property of the deal would repeat this pass's error in a subtler form -- which is exactly how a corrected project reintroduces a defect. NO THRESHOLD CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. The instrument can fail (spec §5): a witness must replay to a win, an unwinnable position must report searched-out rather than a budget cut, a one-node budget must not claim exhaustion, and the policy panel must actually disagree. difficulty-baseline.rs marked superseded, kept as the survey's dated snapshot. Registered as F16, inconsistent / withdrawn. T07. evidence/CB-EV-0024. Five of nine defects came only from the review; four from execution, and all four of those were in work written after it. The wrong-denominator family now has five instances and still no control -- facts-check catches copies that disagree, nothing catches a number computed correctly against the wrong base. Tier L was an over-declaration (no port, structurally M) and paid for itself anyway, because the review is L-only. Chaos window 2 will close with zero overrides, making its retirement condition untestable. Named as open rather than implied done: the witness is NOT wired to the ending page. The search works; the browser cannot ask it yet. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 8d58568013 |
CB-WP-0024: the table you can watch
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned
out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the
table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes
either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is
readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest
control is a person playing it.
T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said
"close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE
SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table
and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect,
and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every
control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that
made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null),
which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser.
The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned
{then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every
line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test
in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable
from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to
express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the
reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports
surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control
asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal.
T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question
the task required settling: it already works, at
games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that
ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state
before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a
reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that
ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this
underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message.
T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The
face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden
carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The
leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two
different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show,
because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws
nothing.
T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What
"cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer
is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and
games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at
different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE --
the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence
the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use
of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than
from play.
make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| 6be9fbc9af |
CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
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> |
