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>
