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>
