The AM-1 coverage gate failed the build on GR-P05 being uncovered, which
is what showed the rule was in the offer layer rather than in validate.
A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for clients that ask
what is legal. The gate did not catch a bug, it caught a design error.
And the reported case was not the one reported. CB-WP-0018, CB-EV-0016
and the message to ground-game all described SOLVE offered on a
face-down Problem; validate already rejected face-down, so it never was.
Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal, so the three
inert SOLVEs were the HAND case. The ruling covers both so nothing is
invalidated, but a ruling was requested on a wrong description -- the
second time in three passes that a premise reached ground-game
unchecked, after the '12 points available' that voided GR-E01.
Two of two. The pattern is not careless analysis; it is that a claim gets
SENT the moment it is interesting and checked afterwards. Unexecuted
verification, one step further out: not a belief acted on, but a belief
published. CB-WP-0022's reproduction rule would have caught both.
An earlier mutation run reported three survivors and was wrong -- the
replacement strings did not match, so nothing was mutated. It proved
nothing and looked like a result.
Also renames CB-WP-0022-T06B to T07; the hub flagged it as an
unregistered species.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Implements ground-game's ruling of 2026-08-03. make all exits 0, 26
scenarios, rule coverage 59/59, and no scenario encoded the bug.
The rule ended up somewhere other than where I put it, and a gate moved
it. It went into legal_commands first; the AM-1 coverage gate then
demanded a scenario for the new GR-P05, and scenarios drive validate, not
the offer layer. A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for
clients that ask what is legal -- the browser would be filtered and a
scenario file would walk straight past it. Once GR-P05 moved into
validate, every condition in legal_commands was dead code, and the
layering test said so in those words.
And the reported case was not the one I reported. CB-WP-0018 and the
message to ground-game described SOLVE offered on a FACE-DOWN Problem.
Measured: validate already rejected face-down, so it never was offered.
Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal -- the
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the HAND case, holding no Clarify
for a Clarify Problem. The ruling covers both so nothing is invalidated,
but the record was wrong.
Four conditions asserted separately, because one 'SOLVE is filtered' test
would pass with three of four implemented.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ground-game ruled SOLVE's legality on 2026-08-03: not offered on a
face-down or Denied Problem, not offered without a matching Solution in
hand, and not offered on a Problem claimed in a prior round. The bluff
reading CB-WP-0018 raised is dead -- it was a filter bug, and the engine
has been offering an inert move since legal_commands was written.
Only SOLVE is ruled on, so only SOLVE is touched. Implementing more than
was ruled would be inventing rules, which is what this exchange exists
to stop.
Chaos d8=6, no override.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
