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>
Two questions from the maintainer — is there a game-theory mapping to
Ludii's language, and is that language formal enough to derive one from.
Yes, no, and the no does not matter.
The mapping is proven, not to be invented: "The Ludii Game Description
Language is Universal" shows the language can represent an equivalent game
for any finite, non-deterministic, imperfect-information game, extending
earlier work limited to finite deterministic fully-observable
extensive-form games. EFG is also OpenSpiel's object, so the same
formalism connects description to analysis: Ludii -> EFG <- OpenSpiel.
Ludii's syntax is formal and unusually so — a class grammar derived
automatically from its source. Its semantics are its Java: a ludeme means
what its class does, and Ludii effectively makes Java the game description
language. So there is no independent calculus to extract. The formality
lives in the universality RESULT, not in a definition of meaning. GDL has
the semantics and pays for it in speed — six times on Gomoku, twenty on
Amazons and Hex, over two hundred on Chess.
Conclusion: do not derive a language from Ludii; target the EFG directly.
And we are closer than the tracks assumed. The journal is the history,
Outcome is the payoff, legal_commands gives the actions — and
project(Viewer::Player(seat)) IS the information partition, built so a
player is not shown another's hand and unremarked as exactly the machinery
imperfect information needs.
Three gaps: chance is folded into a seed so a game is one realisation
rather than a game with chance nodes; perfect recall is unasserted, which
CFR and exploitability both assume; and commit/reveal is the standard EFG
encoding of simultaneity but is never stated as such. Perfect recall is
checkable from the journal today and is now Track B's first task — if it
fails, every equilibrium concept we might quote is unsound here.
Also re-vendored the catalog twice: ground-game added H2 — scoped problem
stress, applying End Stress by personal/bond/global scope instead of flat
to everyone, which is a direct response to our reading that H1's tax
scales with the Problems while its intended effect does not.
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>
edition-check's freshness comparison — newly covering the sibling packages
after CB-REV-0003 #3 — caught catalog.yaml and VARIANT.md moving upstream
within hours of the H1 report landing. ground-game marked the variant
status: measured, added a measurement_ref to their own report of it, and
rewrote the baseline summary around our finding that ATTACK is the sole
inbound pressure.
The check earned itself on its first real use: before round 3 those two
files were recorded and never compared, so this would have gone unnoticed
and our vendored catalog would have quietly disagreed with theirs.
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>
The pattern is now measured over three rounds: 5 fatal, then 3 (2 from the
previous round's corrections), then 4 (3 from them). The corrections are
not getting safer.
FATAL 1: round 2's short-cell assertion went into regulation.rs only.
attack-value.rs — which produced every number in CB-EV-0030's DARVO table
— still just warned, and the gate registered to close the finding claimed
the property for both.
FATAL 2, the sharpest of the three rounds: counting games proves they
STARTED. Stopping the engine after one round gives 200 games, all-zero
columns and exit 0 — byte for byte the signature CB-EV-0030 says the
instrumentation distinguishes from a real result. Both harnesses now
require every counted game to have reached an outcome over five rounds.
FATAL 3: round 2's `.csv` filter was applied to all three loops, so
catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml — whose missing digests were round 1's
finding — were recorded and then never compared, and never checked against
upstream at all. Only the parser loop filters now.
FATAL 4: five of six tiebreak comparators had no coverage. GR-E04's
tiebreak never executes in any scenario. All four are now covered and
mutation-verified; the Blame key needed compensating claims to be
reachable at all, since Blame also lowers the coalition score.
SERIOUS: "peak held" computed the same number as "peak assigned" for every
possible input — the real gap was that START_STRESS was an unchecked
constant, now read off the dealt state; cadence="none" was a pure
loophole, removed; sibling discovery swapped a hand-written list for
hand-written globs and missed metadata.json and VARIANT.md, both named in
the package's own changed_files — now walked, and it found them
immediately; and "~72,000 games" was unsourced, make panels runs 17,600.
Also separated two kinds of number that were presented alike: seats×games
is invariant, 363 and 29 vary 7.1%-11.5% across samples.
Round 4 owed. The conclusion is not that the work is nearly right — it is
that author-made corrections to measurement work should be assumed
defective until a fresh reader has attacked them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The previous commit added the cadence rule and left `make all` red: the
gate-registry self-tests expect exactly one finding each, and their
fixture gates declared no cadence, so they got two. I committed without
re-running the gate to the end.
Fixtures now declare a cadence, and the rule has three controls of its
own: a cadence=all gate absent from `make all` is caught, a gate with no
declared cadence is caught, and declaring `manual` clears it — without
that last one the rule would fire on every manual gate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-REV-0002 #7 found the H1 harnesses were run by no gate. The fix created
a `panels` target and registered it — and did not add it to `make all`. So
the gate existed, passed lint, and ran nowhere: the same defect one level
up, committed in the fix for it.
The registry checked that a gate's target EXISTS. It never checked that
the gate RUNS, and six of ten registered gates are absent from `make all`.
Some are legitimately manual — cost-budget needs spend data, gate-review
is periodic. So a gate may be manual, but it must SAY so: every entry now
declares cadence = all | manual | none, loop-lint requires it, and a gate
claiming "all" that is not in `all:` fails. Both rules mutation-verified.
panels is cadence = all and now runs there, so the figures in CB-EV-0030
and CB-EV-0031 are regenerated by the gate rather than by hand.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three FATAL, five SERIOUS. The substance of round 1's corrections held —
Reactive is genuinely one arm different, the five replacement controls are
non-inert, the inert metric is right, the numbers reproduce. What failed
were the CLAIMS about them, and two defects the corrections introduced.
FATAL 1: the fix for round 1's #11 did not fix it. The assertion was
`games + setup_fails == 200`, and a refused setup increments setup_fails
while skipping games — so the sum is invariant under exactly the failure
it claimed to catch. Injecting setup failures gave exit 0 over 196-game
columns. Now asserts games == GAMES, verified to exit 101.
FATAL 2: the correction to the selective-column FATAL was itself
selective. "81-1000 per cell, baseline AND H1" and "31-1000" twelve lines
apart, both taken from the baseline row; under H1 rank-75 arms are
59/0/0/0. Every cell is now printed rather than summarised, and the
corrected verdict is the opposite of the one it replaced: under rank-75,
H1 REDUCES DARVO arms to zero at 3p and above.
FATAL 3: "DARVO arms 2 per seat per game" is 1 per seat per game, exactly,
at every band.
SERIOUS: the tiebreak oracle asserted only that the winner set CHANGED, so
reversing the tiebreak left it green; the #13 defect's impact was claimed
and never measured (72,000 games: zero divergences — real in principle,
witnessed only by a constructed board); a 29-of-363 citation pointed at a
file that did not contain it (round 1's reviewer did report it, and it was
never transcribed — the record was wrong, not the number); the harnesses
were run by NO GATE, so every published figure came from a manual run of
an ungated binary, including the assertion added for #1; and edition-check's
sibling handling — added by the last correction — was self-certifying,
crashed instead of failing, and counted Markdown lines as coverage. Now
discovered on disk, and it found a real gap on its first run: Rules_Text.csv
vendored with no digest.
Also: "peak Stress held" was dead code kept quiet by `let _ = held;` — the
numbers were right by coincidence.
make panels is now a registered gate. Round 3 is owed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.
Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.
Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.
That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.
regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.
All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
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>
RULED GROUND-WP-0004 (2026-08-03) asked for gr-e01 to be reinstated as an
import check: sum(point_value dealt) >= threshold FOR EVERY SEAT BAND.
Only the 2p half was done — gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p covers the
tightest band, and a check at one band tests one value of the variable
that moves, which is the shape GameDesign §1.4 refuses.
every_seat_band_can_reach_its_threshold covers 2/3/4/5/6 and reports a
row-level table with Surface separated from each hidden priority, which
is engine ask 3 and §1.2's ruled shape — "12 in the file" is the wrong
premise that clause was written for.
Result matches ground-game's authoritative table: 6/9/12 available
against thresholds 5/7/9.
Mutation-proven, and the mutation is the original defect: count Surface as
one of the hidden slots and it fails with "2p: available 4 < threshold 5"
— the withdrawn 4/6/9 undercount, reproduced.
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>
not
Tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation), declared at
d8 because the rate for window 3 is what this document decides and
declaring at a rate it invents would be circular. chaos d8 = 7, no
override.
I CLAIMED WINDOW 2 PRODUCED ZERO OVERRIDES, FIVE TIMES, AND IT IS FALSE.
Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, overrode, drew S against a
structural S, and changed nothing -- and CB-WP-0020 recorded it correctly
at the time, in those words: "the first override at d8... It changed
nothing... One."
Counting the workplans takes one command and I never ran it. CB-EV-0024
asserted "zero" without checking; CB-EV-0025, 0026, 0027 and CB-WP-0029
each cited the one before. A claim propagated five times by citation
rather than by measurement, in files whose subject was that exact failure.
facts-check catches a copied number that disagrees with its source;
nothing catches a number with NO source, asserted once and repeated.
Registered F23, and all four evidence files carry an in-place correction
rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5).
THE ACTUAL VERDICT: THE RATE IS WORKING. Eleven rolls at d8 -- declaration
1 opened the window at the old d4 -- against 1.375 eights expected, 1
observed. Not a shortage of evidence; the design.
BUT THE RETIREMENT CONDITION GENUINELY CANNOT FIRE, and that took
computing to see. "An override changes nothing twice running" needs a
consecutive pair at P=1/3 each, so ~12 overrides expected, at ~1.4 per
window: ~9 windows, roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out
on any realistic horizon is decoration, which ADR-0006 D3 forbids.
Restated to be evaluated PER WINDOW: retire if a full window's overrides
all change nothing, met in two consecutive windows. A window with no
overrides is inconclusive and advances nothing. ~24 declarations rather
than ~100. Window 2 counts as the first; window 3 opens at d8 and decides.
Recorded and deliberately not acted on: declarations 5-9 rolled six five
times running, ~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven rolls. shuf tested
over 200 rapid successive calls looks uniform, longest run three. Found
post hoc, which is how coincidences become findings, so it is logged for a
future window to check rather than treated as evidence.
InnerLoop.md then crossed the loadability limit, and so did
InnerLoopReference.md. The window log moved to specs/ChaosRollHistory.md:
it grows by one entry per window, and a log inside a reference eventually
crowds out the reference.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
unplayed was ours
Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from
CB-WP-0029's roll, no override).
cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an
empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver,
so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach
the thing it was about.
--mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM
IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone
(top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2).
Same 37 commands, three answers.
AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn
its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode:
SHARED GROUND 132/165/190/200 -> identical free but pointless
COMMON PROBLEM 59/52/48/44 -> 59/52/48/34 a cost at six seats
BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34 roughly halved
The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted.
GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond
NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking
numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that
predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04
degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out.
F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK
has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your
score.
Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the
game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic
being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
says
Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.
But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.
So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.
rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO
rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218
rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000
THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.
The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.
Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.
F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
