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 answer is "it depends what you call an information set", and the
distinction is the result. 44,938 decision points, random play, 2/3/4/6
seats.
Reading A — information set = the seat's current projection, which is what
project(Viewer::Player(seat)) returns and what the page renders: 22
violations. Reading B — information set = the seat's observation history,
every view seen and action taken in order: 0.
The Reading A witness is concrete. Two histories reach a byte-identical
view — round 3, Select step, same hand, same claimed Problem — where the
seat had played SOLVE then GROUND-OU(protect) in one and SUPPORT then
SOLVE in the other. The view does not tell the seat what it did, because
our state is a snapshot rather than a history: selections clear each round
and effects coincide, so a player cannot reconstruct their own past from
the present. In a real game the player's memory supplies it; in the state,
nothing does.
That is precisely OpenSpiel's ObservationString vs InformationStateString
split, arrived at here by measurement rather than read off. project() is
an observation, not an information state.
So Track B is not closed, it is constrained, and usefully: an
extensive-form game built from this engine must key information sets on
observation histories, never on project().
Both directions are asserted — Reading B empty AND Reading A non-empty —
because if the sample stops finding Reading A violations the conclusion is
unsupported and must be re-derived rather than quietly kept. And the check
samples, so it can falsify perfect recall and cannot establish it: Reading
B's zero means no counterexample was drawn, which is printed as such.
Wired into make panels, so it is re-derived by the gate rather than by
hand.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
0041 answers what is true of the engine as a game-theoretic object before
anything is built on it. CB-RES-0009 found the EFG is the interchange
format between describing a game and analysing it, and that we already
have most of one — the journal is the history, Outcome the payoff, and
project(Viewer::Player(seat)) the information partition. Three gaps
remain, and perfect recall is first because CFR and exploitability both
assume it and nobody has checked ours. The workplan deliberately builds no
port: creating a capability port is a tier-L trigger and this is M, so
T04 decides whether to build one and declares it separately. T01's control
includes that the answer may be NO, which would make Track B's adoption
unsound as it stands.
0042 implements H2, which is ground-game's direct answer to our H1
reading. Unclaimed Problems now tick only the seats in scope — global,
personal (the owner), or bond (the owner's Bond network over Bond edges
only, degree 0 falling back to personal) — assigned by hidden priority, so
2p never has the bond card in play. It explicitly does not stack with H1.
H2 is bigger than H1 was: it needs variant-scoped edition data (H2
overrides Problems.csv with a stress_scope column, and ours is an
include_str! constant), per-Problem ownership which is new state reaching
the hash and every recording, and Bond-network reachability. The controls
name the likely defects in advance: traversing Rivalry edges, applying
stacking once, forgetting the degree-0 fallback, and ownership silently
becoming a permission to SOLVE.
Chaos window 4 opens: d8 = 5 and d8 = 4, no overrides. Window 3's verdict
is still owed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Eight profiles on a common schema, each marking what was checked against a
source this session and what is background recollection. Three are marked
unverified in full — Machinations, the play substrates, most of RBG — and
say so rather than reading as evaluations. Written straight after three
review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what had been
checked, so the confidence rule is the first thing in the README.
The survey changed the plan, which is what a survey is for.
Track C was described in Positioning as open ground. It is not: Browne
published 57 criteria for game quality, and Ai Ai already computes
designer-facing measures — drama, lead changes, branching factor,
completion, duration — from played games. The track becomes adopt, credit
and find the gap. The gap looks real: those measures presume a leader, and
SHARED GROUND has none — Modes.csv gives its tiebreak as "Not applicable".
Track B probably adopts rather than builds. OpenSpiel implements CFR,
best-response and exploitability over games that are simultaneous-move,
imperfect-information and co-operative, which is all four of GROUND's
awkward properties. "Does ATTACK ever pay" is a best-response question,
and we spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it. The
first Track B task is now one question — is exploitability meaningful for
a co-operative game with a shared threshold — not a build.
The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable, and is recorded
rather than glossed.
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>
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. That was true of the
panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout. GreedyPolicy ranks
`Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites,
Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "H1
does nothing" was really "H1 does nothing to a seat that already manages
its Stress" — and H1 was written for the seat that does not.
`reactive` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted
below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400
times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3
fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count.
The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play
IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games
was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5
and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be
reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet:
it wants the plural panel first.
A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in
every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is
[5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm,
and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the
aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from
H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's
first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such.
Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing
here reaches ground-game until it runs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ground-game packages hypotheses as selectable rules variants — a catalog,
a rules_delta.yaml, and prose — and their note is explicit that CSV text
alone is not executable here. So the kernel gains a Variant in game state:
in the state, therefore in the hash, therefore in the recording, because a
scenario replayed under a different variant would diverge silently.
Baseline is bit-for-bit what it was, asserted across seat counts and
seeds. A variant system that perturbs the baseline invalidates every
measurement this repo has.
H1-A and H1-B implemented from rules_delta.yaml and mutation-proven on
their own defects: "unclaimed" misread as face-up-and-unsolved, and the
attacker's Stress read after the attack's effects. Their `unchanged:` list
is asserted rather than trusted — that list is their claim about their own
experiment.
Measured, and three of their four criteria fail. DARVO arm rate is still
0 under greedy; ATTACK selection does not rise and falls for the rank-75
policy; group success collapses from 165/190/200 to 0 at 3/4/6 seats.
The mechanism is not the assumed one: greedy answers the pressure by
regulating, Stress plateaus at 3, so it never reaches the gate at 4 or the
arm at 5 — H1-A acts as a solve-rate tax and H1-B is unreachable under
competent play.
A harness defect was caught before the claim: sweep discarded refused
games silently and never reported its count, so "nobody won" and "nothing
played" printed identically. Reporting H1 as unwinnable on that basis
would have been the ADR-0018 family aimed at another repo's design. All
200 games ran in every cell; the zeros are real.
Chaos d8 = 8 — the window's first override, redrew L against a structural
L, so it changed nothing. Window 3 recorded in ChaosRollHistory.
NOT REVIEWED: tier L owes a separate-agent adversarial review, and no H1
result may reach ground-game until it has run.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reading Player_Mats.csv and Glossary.csv — which O4 had forbidden
declaring about until they were read — found a rule. Player_Mats'
choice_rule column IS GR-R03: at Stress 4-5 choose ATTACK or GROUND unless
you spend a ready Freedom token. The engine's stress_gated and
allowed_under_stress_gate match it exactly, and now have a tripwire.
So Ornamentation.md gains §1.3: the unit is a column, not a file.
Classifying Player_Mats as ornamentation would have thrown a rule away
with the colour swatches. A mixed artifact is normal — a player mat is a
rule printed on a decorated card in the box too. O4 is rewritten and
re-grounded from provisional to rule accordingly.
O5, O6, O7 declared with falsifiers. O7's is not theoretical:
back_design_id is unread in four vendored files, and hidden information is
what card backs are for.
CB-EV-0029 answers T04's question per rule rather than as a count — yes,
every checkable clause — and states the reading that result does NOT
support: it shows GroundRules.md was a faithful secondary source for the
clauses with behaviour to check, not that the engine is correct.
10 of 19 files vendored. Nine still unread, and Rules_Text.csv is the one
that matters: every clause checked here was checked against our own
transcription of it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
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>
--pace speed|interactive, defaulting to Speed. Nothing reads it yet, and
that is the point: it is the seam clay-animate attaches to, and a seam is
cheap now where a retrofit would not be. A misspelt pace is refused rather
than defaulting, because quietly falling back to Speed would look exactly
like the renderer being broken.
I3 is asserted rather than intended: the same scripted game at both paces
must produce a byte-identical serialised recording and the same end state
hash. Mutation-proven — leak the pace into the seed and it fails with "the
recording differs by pace, so a renderer has become mechanism".
specs/OrnamentRegister.md carries four declarations. This reverses the
reasoning written in T03 earlier, which said the first declarations would
come from F18's unvendored files: instances already existed. Hand order is
what prompted the category, and "who deals" was the maintainer's own
example. O3 is the interesting one — seat ORDER is mechanism because
GR-R08 rotates Lead, while where a seat is drawn is not.
I5 is executable: check_ornament_falsifier fails any row still declared
that names no falsifier, mutation-proven red on O1. Presence, never
adequacy, and the finding text says so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Draws one boundary — between what the rules can see and everything else a
player experiences — and says which repository each belongs to as the
simulator grows.
"Ritual" becomes ornamentation: half the category is material rather than
ceremonial, and "decoration" is already spoken for in this repo (a control
that cannot fail). The test is not "does it have a decision in it" —
choosing who deals is a decision and is ornamental. The test is whether
the state hash moves, which reuses the instrument that already binds a
trial note to a position.
The part that earns its place in clay-borg rather than in a renderer's
stylesheet: calling something ornamentation is a CLAIM THAT IT DOES NOT
MATTER, and this project's register is a list of times that claim was
wrong — quantity in Tokens.csv, F18's four unread files, SOLVE offered
where it could not act. So a declaration carries a falsifier, and
"provisional" is a state it must say out loud.
Downstream may read, may not decide — ADR-0007 D5 restated at the
repository boundary. The port to clay-animate is deliberately NOT
designed: no consumer exists, and an interface built against an imagined
client is the same defect as a gate that cannot go red.
Five invariants, four checkable today. I3 — same seed and decisions
produce a byte-identical recording at any pace through any renderer — is
the falsifier for the whole split.
CB-WP-0036 re-declared from L to M accordingly: the animation architecture
that made it L has moved to clay-animate. No code had been written and the
tier-L review had not been run, which is the only reason it could be
re-scoped rather than unwound.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tier L, and it is not the animation that makes it so. Three things in the
report are not presentation: a ritual is an interaction with no command
behind it and must never reach the recording; hand order is not game state
and must not move the state hash; and animating another player's move
needs the page to see a SEQUENCE, not a state.
The obstacle named up front: the page reloads after every accepted
command, which destroys the DOM, and you cannot animate across it. Letting
JS mutate the DOM instead is refused — that is ADR-0007 D5's line. Rust
describes the movement and the reloaded page animates into place, which
keeps the server authoritative and makes the animation a rendering of
facts Rust wrote, exactly like the log. The journal is already the
sequence needed.
The invariant that protects the rest: for the same seed and the same
decisions, the recording is byte-identical in both paces.
Left ready, not active: tier L requires a separate-agent adversarial
review before code, and it has not been done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two reports, one cause: the script's fetch had no .catch. When the server
had exited the promise rejected, the chain never ran, and not even the
status line moved — so a dead server and a click that did nothing were
indistinguishable. play again read as a dead button, and the linger
timeout was invisible.
Now a rejection says the session is gone and seals the page, and a
5-second heartbeat against a new /alive notices it without needing a
click, which is what the timeout case requires. The beat carries the
token, and does not extend the linger: that deadline is absolute.
The harness had the same hole. jsrun's fetch stub had no .catch, so the
branch that notices a dead server would have been unreachable in every
test — the very defect the stub's own comment records from CB-WP-0024.
Teaching it __failing, .catch and a recorded setInterval was the fix;
writing the script defensively would have repeated the trap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reported three times across three sessions, two days apart, and it
survived a whole UI rebuild: "i cant see whos support i accept".
It was not styling. The move button's label was format!("{c:?}"), so the
player read `RespondToSupport { response: AcceptBond }` — Rust struct
syntax with no name in it. And the command does not carry the
counterparty, so nothing rendering it alone could have said who; it comes
off the view, as whoever played Support at this seat.
Four more seat-panel fields had the same defect, including `support
AcceptBond` — the one the report names. CB-WP-0020 fixed exactly this for
selections and left its four neighbours as they were.
command_label has no catch-all arm, and that earned its keep before any
test ran: GroundChoice::RejectReverse and SupportResponse::BreakRivalry
both failed to compile — two moves that would have shipped as struct
dumps. An offer the view cannot see is said to be unseen rather than given
an invented name.
The finding underneath: the coverage probe that exists to prove every view
field reaches the PLAYER was matching "player: Some(PlayerId(1))" and
"members: [PlayerId(1)". It was certifying the defect as coverage and
would have gone red had anyone fixed it. Second confirmation of
CB-WP-0024's finding, from the sharper side: a probe naming Debug output
does not merely fail to protect, it pins the defect in place.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
make trials reported "positions unreachable: 4, target 0 — the recording
exists but the position moved". All four were false. A recording holds one
hash, the final state, and reachability asked whether the note's hash was
in that file — so a mid-game note could never match, and a post-game note
from any but the last game could not either. Instance 8 of the ADR-0018
family: vary only WHEN a note was written and the answer flips, with
nothing having moved.
The root cause was not the metric. play again reused state belonging to a
game: it overwrote the previous game's recording (data loss), never
cleared the journal (game 2's log opened with game 1's commands), and so a
note's command index pointed into a recording without those commands.
Fixing reachability alone would have gone green while a session still
destroyed its own evidence.
A note now binds by (game, after) — an index into the recording's own
commands list, which a reader can replay to. The hash keeps a job as the
integrity check at the end of a game, where it can actually fail. Game 1
keeps the path it was given, so GameDesign §5's documented invocation is
unchanged; later games get -2, -3 and nothing is overwritten. Legacy
5-column logs stay readable and are reported as legacy, never as orphans —
an unsubstantiated orphan claim is the defect being fixed.
All three fixes mutation-proven, including at the call site via a real
two-game session.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Notes were written to a file and shown back nowhere — the shape
trials.py's own docstring calls this project's signature failure in a new
medium. The log now carries the player's comments where they were made.
Position is the feature: a remark like "why did that do nothing?" is about
the move above it, and collected at the bottom it is a sentence with no
subject. round/step cannot order a note against the log because several
commands share a step, so the server records how many commands had been
played — which it knows exactly — and the page places it there.
A comment must not be readable as something the game did. The log is the
recorder's vocabulary; notes render in their own block, attributed to the
player, quoted. The .note CSS already existed and nothing had ever used it.
No column was added to the trial log. trials.py skipped any row that was
not five cells, silently, so a sixth column would have made `make trials`
report zero notes for every log at once. That latent defect is fixed on
its own terms: a wrong column count now raises, and the walk reports the
real reason rather than blaming a missing block for every failure.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The note channel closed at the moment it is worth most — a player who has
just seen the outcome is the one with something to say, and that reading
was collectable at every moment of the game except the one after it.
Two independent defects: doc::ending never rendered the box, and
serve_end had no POST /note arm, so even a hand-built post fell through to
404. Fixing either alone leaves the channel shut, so the test asserts both
and is mutation-proven to fail on each half separately.
A post-game note binds to the final position but is not an observation
made at the last decision point. RoundStep::End is the last step of a
ROUND, not the end of the game, so record_note now takes the step as an
argument and the post-game path passes "after the end" — otherwise an
after-the-fact reading is filed as an in-play one, which is the
wrong-subject family ADR-0018 was written for.
A note does not end the session: every other POST in that loop breaks it,
and a player must be able to write a second one and then still play again.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Seven claims in this project have been wrong the same way — the arithmetic
right, the subject wrong. Four reached a document or another repo.
ADR-0018 states the rule: a measured claim names the variable it depends
on and shows the measurement moving with it. GameDesign §1.4 adds it as a
fourth admissibility clause; the existing three are untouched.
Honest yield is 3 clear + 1 partial of 7. It misses a count never made and
a claim that is not a number, and D3 names those so nobody stops looking.
The tempting fix — closing facts-check's 62 untagged literals — would have
caught 1 of 7 and is deferred as separate work rather than bundled.
loop-lint gains check_sensitivity_stated over arithmetic register rows,
mutation-proven red on F17 and green when restored, with four self-test
controls. It checks presence, never adequacy, and says so in its output.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Declaration 1 of chaos window 3 (opened by ADR-0017), tier M, chaos d8=7,
no override.
Seven claims in this project have been wrong the same way, and the
workplan tabulates all seven with what caught each.
MEASURED BEFORE PROPOSING: facts-check reports 62 untagged literal copies
and fails on none, which is a real drift surface it names and does not
close. CLOSING IT WOULD HAVE CAUGHT AT MOST ONE OF THE SEVEN. Instance 1's
denominator WAS a registry fact and WAS correct -- the error was that
AM-4a does not cover the code. Four others were fresh measurements with no
registry key. A tag proves a number came from somewhere; it cannot prove
the somewhere was the right place. Named as separate work rather than
bundled, because bundling would let this pass claim a victory it did not
win.
What did work: every instance was caught when the number was computed a
SECOND TIME by something with a different purpose. Two of them share a
sharper property -- the claim was tested against a variation. #4's cost
FELL as branching ROSE, which no per-node cost can do, and the tell was in
the published output. #5's win rate was attributed to the game, and a
second policy on the same deals gave 0% where the first gave 100%.
So the rule generalises what this project already builds after each
instance (the policy panel, the attack-value sweep) and requires it
before: a measured claim must name the variable it depends on and show the
measurement moving with it. A number that does not move when its subject
moves is measuring something else.
HONEST YIELD: 3 or 4 of 7, and it catches the two that travelled furthest.
It does not catch a count never made, or a claim that is not a number.
Claiming it closes the family would be the family's own error applied to
itself.
T03 requires the lint to fail on a real row by mutation, and to say in its
own output that it checks PRESENCE and not ADEQUACY -- so nobody reads a
green lint as 'the claim was verified'.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
evaluate
CB-EV-0027.
The supply is never exceeded, and the link row explains why: GR-L01's two
slots per seat ARE the twelve link tokens, the same constraint written
twice. Nothing was designed to make that true; it fell out.
The Focus/Blame check was wrong and I caught it -- fifth instance of the
family CB-EV-0019 named (a number computed correctly about the wrong
subject) and the FIRST caught before leaving the repo, rather than by an
adversarial reviewer or the maintainer. That is one data point, not a
trend. What differed is that this pass read its own output and asked what
exactly it had compared. The family still has no control: facts-check
catches copies that disagree and nothing catches a correct computation
over the wrong subject.
The height limit went 460 -> 500, and the evidence argues why that is a
correction and not a concession. 460 was a number picked while fixing the
unplayable table -- no derivation. 500 has one: ~800px viewport less ~120
header and ~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging
declared 620. An underived limit is a measurement defect; replacing it
with a derived one is CB-WP-0021 T06's rule applied rather than evaded. A
later pass wanting 560 has to move the viewport budget, not the number.
CHAOS WINDOW 2 IS CLOSED. Twelve declarations, zero 8s, zero overrides.
Its retirement condition -- retire if an override changes nothing twice
running -- was untestable from the first declaration to the last, and
CB-EV-0024, 0025 and 0026 each said so; this is the fourth and final.
Window 1 at d4: 12 declarations, 2 overrides, both changed the outcome.
Window 2 at d8: 12, 0, none.
The verdict this supports is that d8 bought rarity by spending evidence --
stronger than "the rate is too low", because the rate was chosen without
asking what sample size the retirement condition needs. Recording that
changes how the loop constrains its own operation, which is a tier-M
trigger in its own right, so it is OUTSTANDING and named rather than
bundled here. Leaving it implicit is exactly how ground-game's ten rulings
went uncollected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
Declaration 12 of chaos window 2, which CLOSES IT. Structural M (imports
another edition file under AM-4's budgets), chaos d8=4, no override.
Tokens.csv turns out to carry more than names. Every token has a
`quantity` -- 6 Protection, 5 Denied, 12 relation links -- and a component
count is a limit a simulation does not have unless it is told. protection
is saturating_add(1) at lib.rs:986 with no upper bound, against an edition
that ships six tokens for six players. T03 measures whether that matters
rather than assuming either way.
And `sides` is the second interesting column: Freedom and Focus/Blame are
each ONE DOUBLE-SIDED TOKEN, not two states. The engine holds Focus in a
map and Blame in a list; whether those can disagree with a single physical
token is worth checking.
T03 is shaped against a specific error: whatever it finds is a FINDING,
not a fix. A component limit the rules do not state is underdetermined and
belongs to ground-game, and the engine must not start enforcing a bound
nobody ruled. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered where it could
not act; inventing a limit is the same error in the other direction.
The workplan also names the window-2 verdict as DUE. Its retirement
condition was untestable throughout -- eleven declarations, zero 8s, zero
overrides -- and recording that is a change to how the loop constrains
itself, so it is its own tier-M pass rather than a task here. Named so it
is not lost between passes, which is how the ten rulings went uncollected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
turned out to be
T03. One table_svg: seats around an elliptical table starting at the
BOTTOM -- the viewer sits nearest the reader, as at a real table --
Problems and both stacks in the middle, each seat's played card between it
and the centre, relations drawn between seats.
Two renderers were DELETED: relations_svg and piles_svg. The task said one
table not two diagrams, and leaving the old ones would have meant drawing
the same thing twice and letting them drift.
No coverage probe cost, through a restructure that merged three diagrams
and removed two functions. Second confirmation of CB-WP-0027's finding: a
probe naming a FACT survives a reflow, one naming a PRESENTATION does not.
CB-WP-0024's "17 remaining" broke on a rendering change; this far larger
reflow broke nothing.
The new control is per seat count -- no two seat circles closer than 70px
at 2 through 6 -- asserted rather than eyeballed at three, which is the
only count anyone ever looks at.
T08 (CB-EV-0026). Seven of nine observations were engine defects, one was
a design finding, one was already true and nobody could tell.
Observations 4 and 5 both dissolved and had ONE cause: nothing on the page
said how drawing works, so a player built a mental model to fill the gap
and reported the gap as two feature requests.
The import gap was worse than "one of nineteen" -- 5 of 13 columns read
from the file we DID vendor, discarded at parse time for eight days. Rule
coverage was 59/59 throughout. The gate measures whether rules are
EXERCISED; nothing measures whether a player can READ the game, and
nothing cheaply could, which is why the person playing it is the
instrument.
TWO GATES WERE WRITTEN FOR A SMALLER WORLD, and neither was wrong when
written. edition-check compared one recorded digest against Problems.csv
regardless of which file it described -- correct with one vendored file,
comparing across files with four. And a cb-play test asserted the literal
"game over" and went red when a won game said "solved", which was T06
working; it now asserts the heading against the OUTCOME and covers the
no-outcome case the original never touched.
Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in eleven declarations at d8.
Third and final statement of it: d8 bought rarity by spending evidence,
and a mechanism producing no data across a full window cannot be evaluated
by that window.
make all: exit 0. 57 render tests, 26 cb-play, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
a feature deliberately not built
T04 BUILT NOTHING, WHICH IS THE CORRECT OUTCOME. "Click the draw stack to
get hand cards" is not a legal move: GroundCommand has no standalone draw,
and the edition's own INVESTIGATE text settles it -- "Choose one hidden,
non-Denied Problem and reveal it. THEN DRAW ONE SOLUTION." Drawing is a
consequence, never an action. Implementing click-to-draw would have
invented a rule, which is what CB-WP-0023 exists to stop.
And observation 5 is already true: drawing is ALREADY automatic, inside
INVESTIGATE, with no player input. An auto-draw option was asked for a
thing that has never been manual.
Both observations have one root cause and T02 fixed it. The maintainer
expected to take cards from the deck because NOTHING ON THE PAGE SAID HOW
DRAWING WORKS -- the INVESTIGATE card's own text was in a file we had not
imported. No finding raised: a player's instinct differing from a legible
rule is a comprehension gap, not a rules gap. Whether the instinct recurs
now that the text is present is a testable question and was not before.
T06: "game solved" on a win, "game over" on a loss, "the game stopped"
with no outcome. Asserted all three ways, because a test checking only the
win case passes for a page that always says solved. More than tone --
GROUND is co-operative and about repairing something, and arcade
failure-state vocabulary for a win tells a player the wrong thing about
what they just did.
T05: the ending page gets the table's two-column shape. Result left;
rankings, controls and the full log right. The seal still removes every
control wherever they now live.
T07's interesting decision was NOT TO RANK. Modes.csv defines
scoring_tiebreak per mode, so ordering is the GAME's where one exists --
"Lower combined Stress, then fewer Blame tokens" for coalitions. For
SHARED GROUND it says "Not applicable", because the table succeeds or
fails together. So co-op shows contributions and refuses to order them,
and says why. Drawing a leaderboard because a leaderboard is easy would
invent scoring the rules do not have. The one derived superlative is
labelled "clay-borg's reading, not a rule" and appears only where the mode
ranks; ties are shown as ties.
52 render tests pass. check clean, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0015 and the import. F18's fix: "I don't understand the GROUND card"
was never a design gap -- the card explains itself in the edition and we
never imported the explanation.
THE MEASUREMENT IS THE DECISION, and the gap is bigger than "one file of
nineteen". Of the file we DID vendor, the engine reads 5 of 13 columns:
title, problem_text, front_rules, reveal_effect and unresolved_effect were
discarded at parse time. The cheapest part of this pass costs no new bytes
and was sitting in the repo for eight days. And SCN_01 is hardcoded at
lib.rs:1824 -- the edition ships FOUR scenarios and the engine has never
dealt three of them. Nobody had said so.
ADR-0011's revisit condition is measurably absent, so the dependency
argument does not get re-run: across Actions, Solutions, Modes and
Scenarios there are ZERO doubled quotes and ZERO embedded newlines. The
hand reader's only job is comma-in-quoted-field, which it already did.
Refusing csv on a measurement rather than on a preference.
Vendored Actions, Solutions and Modes -- the text a player reads. Not the
production artifacts (BOM, Print_Manifest, Back_Designs, Symbols). NOT
Extensions.csv, which names content the designer placed outside the core;
importing it would break the claim that this engine plays the edition as
printed. It is now known to exist, which was the real risk.
One Table reader with four callers, because a per-file copy is how a
parser acquires four subtly different bugs. The GROUND card now shows
"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide." with its GR/OU/ND text on demand;
Problems show their own titles where a priority number used to be.
The load-bearing test asserts the text is a SUBSTRING OF THE VENDORED
FILE rather than equal to a Rust literal -- a test comparing against a
hardcoded expectation would pass for a hand-copied string, which is the
drift this ends.
`edition` came out from behind #[cfg(feature = "scenarios")]. It was gated
because its only consumer was; the edition is the game's own data and the
shipped runtime now reads it. Test machinery and game content are
different things and only one of them is optional.
And edition-check was written for a single-file world: it compared the
first recorded digest against Problems.csv regardless of which file that
digest described. It now checks every file both ways -- a vendored file
with no digest fails, a digest naming an absent file fails -- and asserts
ADR-0015 D3's falsifier directly rather than trusting it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
CB-EV-0025. T05 asks whether a comment actually got written during play,
unprompted. It has not been, and that is the pass's real acceptance test.
Everything built here is evidence the mechanism works; none of it is
evidence it gets used. I exercised it myself, which proves the plumbing
and proves nothing about the ergonomics -- the person who wrote the
feature is the worst possible witness to whether it is worth using.
Stated plainly rather than answered optimistically, because CB-WP-0022
built a register whose first run found ten answers nobody had collected:
this project's failures are about whether things get READ.
ADR-0007 D5 turned out to be the easy part. PointerFact::parse already
refuses any unrecognised field, so a comment could not reach the command
path even by accident. That is strictness at a boundary paying off years
early, and the clearest instance in this project of it being cheaper than
vigilance across one.
esc() held against its first hostile input, and the test asserts the
harder half: the player's words are still READABLE after escaping. An
escaper that dropped the text would pass "no script tag in the output"
while destroying the note.
The reflow cost no coverage probe -- all 41 pre-existing render tests
passed through a full restructure into two columns. CB-WP-0024 saw the
opposite when a probe was tied to a rendering ("17 remaining"), and the
contrast is the useful part: a probe that names a FACT survives a reflow,
a probe that names a PRESENTATION does not.
Running it changed the design for the third pass running, after
CB-WP-0024's role column and CB-WP-0025's K=2 infeasibility. The pattern
is consistent enough to state: the ADRs in this project are good at
deciding and poor at predicting, and the loop's value comes
disproportionately from the code loop rather than from steps 1-3.
Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in twelve declarations, so its
retirement condition is untestable -- final now rather than projected. The
window's verdict should be that d8 made the mechanism unevaluable.
Also recorded rather than dismissed: make all failed once at env-test and
passed on re-run. A cb-play server and several cargo processes were
running concurrently, which is the likely cause -- but "likely" is doing
work in that sentence and I did not chase it. A gate that fails
intermittently and is re-run until green is a gate being trained not to
matter.
Not built, and named: promoting a comment to a register note is still
manual.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The meta view beside the table, and a note channel that provably cannot
carry a move.
T01 (ADR-0014). ADR-0007 D5 is SCOPED, NOT AMENDED, and the reason it was
easy is that PointerFact::parse already refuses any unrecognised field --
a comment could not reach the command path even by accident. So /command
carries pointer facts, /note carries text, and Note has no code path to
GroundCommand. Comments live in trials/<date>-<slug>.md, not in
ScenarioFile: a scenario is executed, replayed and hashed, and prose in it
is data the runner must ignore, which is how a format rots. The state hash
binds; round and step are for reading. And the retention question, decided
before any comment was written: RAW NOTES NEVER LEAVE clay-borg. A note
reaches ground-game only by being promoted to a register finding, by a
human, with the wording chosen then -- "the DARVO sequence is infuriating"
is useful signal and a bad way to open a message to the game's designer.
T02. CSS grid, minmax(0,1fr) on both tracks -- load-bearing, because a
grid child defaults to min-content width and without it the SVG table
refuses to shrink and pushes the meta column off-screen, looking correct
on the developer's monitor and broken everywhere else. Single-column
fallback under 64rem. The running tally moved into the panel so it is
visible WHILE PLAYING; it only appeared on the ending page before, and a
score you see once the game is over informs nothing.
T03. A plain <form method="post">, so the box works with the script
disabled; the command channel needs JavaScript because a drag is not a
form submission, a comment is one. 303 See Other so a reload does not
re-post. esc()'s first hostile input: <script>alert(1)</script> renders
escaped AND STILL READABLE -- escaping that eats the player's words is its
own defect. Verified over real HTTP: note posted 303, hostile note stored
as text, empty note refused 400, game did not advance.
T04. tools/trials.py and make trials. THE REPORT'S DESIGN CHANGED BECAUSE
I RAN IT: the first version called any note without a recording an orphan,
so a live session reported every note as broken -- the recording is only
written at game end. A metric that cries wolf is one nobody reads, which
is the exact failure this pass exists to prevent. Now ok / pending /
orphan, and only orphan is a target-0 number. The self-test exercises the
REPORTING path, not just the parser, because design-baseline.py had a
green self-test and an unexercised reporting path and that is where it
rotted.
And a latent Makefile defect surfaced: make trials did nothing, because
trials is also a directory and Make saw an up-to-date file. design,
difficulty and trials -- added by CB-WP-0022, CB-WP-0025 and this pass --
were ALL missing from .PHONY; only the one that collided revealed it.
make all: exit 0. 49 render tests, 26 cb-play, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The maintainer's ask: game interface left, meta and commentary right, with
comments bound to game state so a test player's perception, confusion and
reasoning become reviewable signal.
Declared M (chaos d8=7, no override, declaration 10 of window 2). It
touches two canonical interfaces: ADR-0007 D5's input contract, which
currently admits only raw pointer facts, and the recorded-session format,
which is deny_unknown_fields -- CB-WP-0026 just proved that bites.
FRAMED AS GameDesign §5's TRIAL PROTOCOL MADE ERGONOMIC, because that is
what it is. The protocol already exists and nobody would use it as
written: it asks the player to reconstruct their reasoning afterwards,
from memory, in a sibling file. A comment typed while the position is on
screen is contemporaneous, bound to something replayable, and captures the
one class of signal no gate in this project can see -- confusion and
frustration.
The reason it is worth more than a comment box: GameDesign §3.1 makes a
note unreportable until it has a reproduction, and three findings are
stuck there now (F12, F14, F15). A comment bound to a recorded state, plus
the recording, is the cheapest reproduction a play-derived observation can
have. So the pass closes the register's input path for findings that come
from playing rather than from building.
The failure it must not reproduce is named up front: a pile of prose
nobody reads is this project's signature defect -- the four-day unread
message, the ten uncollected rulings. Storage is not the deliverable,
surfacing is, and T04 carries it.
T01 (ADR-0014) must decide where comments live, what the page may send
(D5's transport widens from two ids to arbitrary user text -- amended or
merely scoped?), what binds a comment to a position, and the retention
question this project has not faced: these are the maintainer's own words
about his own game, one will eventually be unflattering, and whether they
travel to ground-game needs deciding before any are written.
T03 notes that esc() is about to face its first hostile input -- until now
it has escaped suit names.
loop-lint: no findings.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
affordability projection
games/ground/src/search.rs, five tests. It finds real winning lines and
replays them through validate/fold to group_success.
Two bugs in my own work, found and fixed here.
THE TRAVERSAL WAS WRONG. It branched on "the first seat with any legal
command" and stopped there, so a later seat never acted if an earlier one
was already selected but still had a legal move. Restructured around what
the rules oblige: a seat without a selection MUST select (GR-R02) and
nothing else can happen first; after Reveal the optional actions branch
freely and the aggregate rejects Resolve until the obligatory ones are
done -- so the search needs no phase logic of its own.
AND MY REWIND WAS OFF BY ONE ROUND, replaying the round it was meant to
search. That is why the first run reported 3 nodes and looked like a
working search.
Measured with the real search, rewinding real games to the start of their
last K rounds:
2p K=1 exhausted, 8,103 nodes, ~29 ms
2p K=2 budget cut at 2,000,000 nodes, ~5 s
3p K=2 win found, 41 nodes, ~157 us
The spec's own falsifier said "§3 fails if K=2 proves unaffordable at four
seats". IT FAILED AT TWO. The projection assumed a joint product per
round; the search explores sequential per-seat decisions, so orderings
multiply the tree far beyond width^seats. That is the second projection
this pass published in place of a measurement -- C1's timer was the first.
THE ASYMMETRY IS THE OPERATIVE FINDING. Finding a win is cheap: DFS
stumbles onto one in tens of nodes. Proving none exists needs exhaustion.
So the witness feature is affordable now at any K a player would ask
about, and the winnable fraction (ADR-0013 D4) is NOT, because its
negative half must exhaust every deal it counts. K=1 is the honest default
for exhaustive answers today; making K=2 exhaustible needs transposition
or move-ordering, neither of which this pass built. specs §3 and §3.1
corrected accordingly, and the K=2 default withdrawn.
The negative control that makes "winnable" falsifiable: 2p seed 7 over its
last round returns NoneFound with exhausted=true in ~8k nodes -- a real
negative, not a budget cut wearing a verdict's clothes. And the visible/
hidden marking is tested both ways, since a marking that can only say YES
is decoration.
make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
caught me repeating C1
specs/RetrospectiveAnalysis.md v1.0 plus games/ground/benches/search.rs,
which exists because ADR-0013 D7 refused to let the spec quote either
disputed figure.
THE BENCHMARK'S OWN FIRST FIXTURE WAS DEFECTIVE, and it is the same defect
class the review caught one layer up. Stopping at a fixed step 20 put 2p
and 4p in states where seat 0 had NO legal commands, so it timed an empty
Vec (~120 ns) and silently skipped validate_fold because there was nothing
to validate. It now advances until the seat has a real branch and ASSERTS
it. A clone benchmark was added too: a search must copy state per branch,
and iter_batched excludes setup from timing, so without it the budget
would again rest on an unmeasured span.
Measured at real decision points: legal_commands 4.06-4.76 us, clone
378-639 ns, validate+fold 0.5-3.8 us. Per-child cost is NOT uniform --
some commands resolve cascades -- so budgets use the upper end (~5
us/child).
That settles D3 with real numbers. Joint branching over the last two
rounds is ~5x10^2 / 1.6x10^5 / 5.7x10^5 at 2/3/4 seats, so K=2 costs
negligible / 0.8 s / 2.9 s and holds at two to four seats. It does NOT
hold at five or six, where the tool must reduce K and say that it did
rather than silently searching less.
§4.1 is a normative prohibition, not a preference: a single policy's win
rate MAY NOT be reported as a difficulty. The spec carries the measured
reason -- greedy 100% against first-legal 0% on identical deals -- because
this project already made that error and nearly exported it to a repo that
is blocked waiting on the number.
§2.3 makes the empty-result wording normative: "no winning line found in
the last K rounds", never "unwinnable". A bounded search cannot establish
unwinnability and that sentence is what a player who just lost reads.
Also corrected: the T01 completion record still asserted all three
withdrawn claims as fact. It now carries claimed / withdrawn / survives
explicitly rather than being rewritten -- a retraction that does not
propagate to every place the claim lives is how the earlier ones survived.
make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
does not measure the bot
Seven decisions. Two are not what T03 expected, because the review moved
the ground under both.
D1: strategy fusion DOES NOT APPLY, and that is why the affordable option
is also the honest one. Fusion is a defect of aggregating over
determinizations to choose a move -- the search picking different actions
in states a player cannot distinguish. After the game there is ONE WORLD:
the deal is known, so a search over it yields a line executable in the
only world there is. The survey treated fusion as this pass's central
obstacle; it is an obstacle to a playing engine, which we are not
building. The tool answers "given the deal as it actually was, was there a
line that reached the threshold" and is labelled that way on screen --
never "how you should have played".
D4: difficulty is the WINNABLE FRACTION, not a bot's win rate. C4 killed
the bot rate -- two trivial policies span 0-100% on the same deals, and
improving the bot would make the game "easier" without a rule changing. A
measure that moves when the measurer improves is not measuring the thing.
The solver supplies the alternative: over N deals, in what proportion does
a winning line exist. That is a property of the deal distribution and the
threshold, which is what ground-game tunes and what GROUND-WP-0005 is
blocked on. Ships as a table -- winnable fraction, named reference policy,
skill gap -- never one number, with policy/N/seed-range/K in the number's
name. Stated as a LOWER BOUND, since a K-round search cannot see a line
that needed round 1.
D2: search GroundState. The survey's view-only structural boundary is not
implementable -- a view cannot fold events, and it said so in §6. The
guarantee moves to something checkable: every move in a witness is marked
visible or hidden, computed from project(). A witness reads "you could
have won, but two of these six moves needed a card you had no way to know
was coming" -- more useful than either extreme.
D3: bounded exhaustive over the last K rounds, table as one co-operative
agent, K=2 default. Affordable once C6 corrected the premise: joint
branching over the last two rounds is ~5x10^2 / 1.6x10^5 / 5.7x10^5 at
2/3/4 seats. Wording is normative: "no winning line found in the last K
rounds", never "unwinnable". PIMC and ISMCTS rejected -- they add strategy
fusion to a problem that does not have it.
D5: the harness becomes an instrument before any figure is quoted (C3) --
positive controls, --self-test in make self-tests, a make target, and a
PLURAL policy panel, because the spread between policies is what C4
exposed and hiding it would restore the error.
D6: no new crate and no port. The L declaration was an over-declaration
and is recorded as one. D7: the node cost is disputed 5x between author
and reviewer; T04 benchmarks it with criterion and neither existing figure
may be cited, including by this ADR.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
premise never left the repo
Separate agent, second tier-L review in this project. Six of seven
challenges conceded. The survey's headline finding is WITHDRAWN, not
softened.
C4 kills it, and the reviewer ranked it fourth. A FirstLegal policy --
take legal[0], no heuristic at all -- scores 0% at five and six seats
where GreedyPolicy scores 100%, and 77.5% at two seats where greedy scores
66%. Two unsophisticated agents span the entire range at the same seat
count. "The game is too easy at 5-6 seats" is therefore a statement about
GreedyPolicy, not about GROUND. The rescue the reviewer offered -- greedy
hits the 12-point ceiling in 200/200 deals, so the 6p row is a rules claim
-- dies on the same data: FirstLegal reaches that ceiling never.
C1: the per-node cost was wrong by 30-50x. The timer started before the
seed loop, so "us/node" included two setups, an entire greedy game and a
full validate+fold replay, divided by player-decision count. The tell was
in my own published output and I did not look at it: the figure FELL
(161/139/112) as branching ROSE (4.7/7.4/9.1), which no per-enumeration
cost can do. Re-measured with the clock around legal_commands alone:
3.0/3.5/4.1 us, now rising with branching. The reviewer measured 15.6-20.4
by a different isolation; we disagree by ~5x and neither has established
which is right, so T04 must benchmark it with criterion rather than adopt
either number.
C6: "exhaustive search is out at any seat count" is false -- ~3 seconds
over the last two rounds at 3p. With C1's correction the budget is
~10^5-10^6 nodes and bounded endgame search fits, so ADR-0013 cannot open
with "exhaustive is impossible, therefore determinized sampling" --
especially as sampling carries strategy fusion that exhaustive search does
not.
C3: the finding failed the admissibility rule this project wrote nine
hours earlier. 6/9/12 are sums where GROUND-WP-0004 T02 requires
per-priority rows, and the harness has no assertions, no --self-test and
no make target, so nothing can turn it red -- a `default` artifact wearing
a `counterexample` label, by CB-WP-0022 T05's own distinction.
C2: the ratio story explains nothing; 3p and 4p share deal, threshold and
ratio and differ by 12.5 points of win rate. C5: "explains the
maintainer's report" is contradicted by lib.rs:2487, which records his
losses as 3-player games on the pre-ruling deal, arithmetically unwinnable
at 6 against 7.
T06 exists to report to GROUND-WP-0005, which is BLOCKED waiting on a
difficulty baseline. Had this proceeded they would have been invited to
move thresholds on the strength of one bot's behaviour. That is the fifth
wrong premise this project would have sent them, and the second stopped by
an adversarial review rather than by a control. Both tier-L reviews here
have now caught a false headline that every gate passed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-RES-0008 with a runnable baseline
(games/ground/examples/difficulty-baseline.rs), and the measurement
produced a finding before any solver exists.
A GREEDY BOT WINS 200 OF 200 GAMES AT FIVE AND SIX SEATS. Median margin
+3, 11.8-12.0 points available against a threshold of 9. The curve is
66% / 82.5% / 95% / 100% / 100% across 2/3/4/5/6 seats.
Row-level, as GROUND-WP-0004 T02 requires: available points 6 / 9 / 12
against thresholds 5 / 7 / 9, so the ratio RISES with seat count (1.20,
1.29, 1.33) while the table also gains actions per round to clear it with.
Three multipliers pointing the same direction.
It also explains the maintainer's report without needing a solver at all:
"I felt it was too easy but then we lost" is two true statements about
different seat counts.
Cost measured and it rules out the obvious approach. Branching is small
(mean 4.7-9.1) but legal_commands costs 112-161 us per call because it
filters candidates through full validate. Exhaustive search is out at
every seat count; 10^4-10^5 nodes is 1.4-14 seconds, which is the budget
the ADR must design inside.
Prior art names the trap: determinized search (PIMC) suffers strategy
fusion (Frank, Basin & Matsubara 1998) -- the search picks different
actions in states a real player cannot distinguish, so the witness may
require knowing what was on top of the deck. Such a line still replays
green, so the checkability benchmark does not catch it. Honesty and
checkability are different properties; stated explicitly so T03 cannot
conflate them.
The survey states its own most likely killer up front (§6): a view-only
search cannot fold events, so making the information boundary structural
rather than a promise may not be affordable. Better found here than in
T05.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
T01. The maintainer asked why the button says "I need to read this" and
why nothing closes. Two defects behind one control: the label described a
reading while the control STOPS THE SERVER (hotseat.rs reads `done` and
breaks its loop), and acknowledging it changed nothing on screen -- the
tab kept a live table and a `play again` pointing at a closed port.
Label is now "end session -- stops the game server". The reply says the
session has ended and the tab can be closed. The script seals the page on
a `closed` reply: removeAttribute('data-drop') on every control, so they
stop being droppable by the same rule that made them droppable. CSS is how
that reads, not the mechanism. removeAttribute rather than
setAttribute(_, null) -- the latter writes the truthy string "null" in a
browser, so the control would stay live while the stub called it sealed.
THE REPLY PATH HAD NEVER BEEN EXECUTABLE IN A TEST. jsrun's fetch stub
returned {then: function(){return this}}, which never invoked its
callbacks, so every line of the script reacting to the server was
unreachable from every test in this project. That is why the defect
survived: a page ignoring the server looked identical to one acting on it.
The stub now delivers a real then-chain and gesture_with_reply reports
which controls survive. The seal is mutation-proven -- deleting the
`closed` branch turns exactly one test red -- and a negative control
asserts an `ok: dealing` reply does NOT seal, since a seal that fired on
every reply would pass the first test and break `play again`.
T02. Draw and discard drawn as offset stacks with their counts. The
shuffle question the task required answering is settled and the answer is
that it already works: games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435 implements the U4
default -- deterministic reshuffle of the discard seeded from seed ^ round,
skip the draw if both are empty -- and ground-game CONFIRMED U4 on
2026-08-03. A ruled rule, not an invented one, nothing to raise. The event
already reads out in the log; what the piles add is the state before it
fires, which is derivable from the view. A claim that a reshuffle HAS
happened would not be, and is not made.
The coverage gate caught its own probe going stale when the "17 remaining"
text was replaced. The count now lives in the pile's <title> -- a stable
probe and what a screen reader announces, where the on-canvas numeral
could be any number on the page.
39 tests pass; cb-play 22 including play_again_deals_a_second_game.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
