T02 — all chance derives from one root seed. Three chance points, all
reading it: the setup deck shuffle, the setup Lead draw, and the reshuffle
permutation. The Problems deal is not chance at all. So in extensive-form
terms the tree has a single chance node at the root.
That test was wrong first, and the mutation caught it. It compared state
hashes — and GroundState carries `seed` as a field, so "different seeds
differ" was true by construction. Mutating the shuffle away left it green.
It now compares the dealt configuration, and the same mutation fails it: a
wrong-subject error inside the control written for T02.
The reshuffle is a pure function of (seed, round) because K5 requires
deterministic replay, where a real table reshuffles independently. That is
a modelling restriction, not a defect, and it is now pinned.
T03 — commit/reveal checked in both directions: before Reveal each seat
sees its own selection and no other; after Reveal the information sets
merge, because an encoding that hides forever is not commit/reveal either.
T04 — ADR-0020 refuses the EFG port, and the blocker is T02 rather than
T01, which inverts what the workplan expected. Perfect recall looked like
the risk and is a constraint with a known answer: key on observation
histories. Making chance explicit is the expensive one — the reshuffle
would become a real chance node and break the K5 purity that every
recording, replay bundle and trial-note hash depends on. A port would
trade the property this project is built on for one it has never needed.
Track B's first move is therefore a question, not a build: take "is
exploitability meaningful for a co-operative game with a shared threshold"
to OpenSpiel on a toy model, where answering it costs nothing. D4 states
what being wrong looks like — OpenSpiel settling on a toy what three
rounds of policy sweeps could not — and makes watching for it the next
action.
Taxonomy §4.1 records the EFG correspondence with the test that checks
each row, so a later pass starts from a specification rather than a memory.
Chaos window 4 at three declarations. Window 3's verdict is now two
windows behind and should be evaluated rather than restated.
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>
