Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
bf24affa84 CB-WP-0020: the table you can read
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
Six of seven perceptual defects fixed; item 1 already passed.

T01, at the maintainer's instruction: a legal target restyles its
EXISTING border rather than drawing a new box. outline + outline-offset
drew a second rectangle, which an SVG viewport clips (the missing top and
left edges) and which made a seat's highlight card-sized. A border
already in the layout cannot move the layout.

T02: the ghost was a textContent copy of the card, which is why the line
break collapsed and it read as a second card, and why showing the
explanation destroyed the label. It is now a pill, the explanation is
appended beside the label, and the left-behind element is dimmed and
dashed. The stub grew innerHTML so a test can assert BOTH are present --
it could previously only see that something was displayed.

T03: NOT reproduced and recorded as not reproduced. The likeliest cause
is which element the browser reports -- for touch and pen the pointer is
captured to the pointerdown target, making every drop look like a
drop-on-itself, which is the other half of the report. elementFromPoint
is correct under both explanations. Separately the refusal was written in
element ids on the one surface a player reads when something goes wrong;
it now speaks the game's words and a test forbids id leakage.

T04: seat selections rendered as Debug. The coverage gate then failed my
first fix for dropping a field when target and problem were both set --
the aggregate does not produce that shape and the gate was right not to
care.

T05: the headline reads from group_success. 'Play again' is real, and its
first version was useless: run_game bound a fresh listener per game, so a
second game moved to a new port and left the tab pointing at a dead one.
One listener per session now, and the test asserts the second game is a
DIFFERENT deal.

Chaos d8=8 fired the first override at the new rate and drew S, changing
nothing -- one half of window 2's retirement condition.

CB-WP-0019 settled at $38.54/117 against $34.80/107. Eight for eight,
and the first under 20%.

make all exits 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-03 20:20:38 +02:00
a733826d95 CB-WP-0018 T03/T04: explanations, and window 1's verdict
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
T03: input::describe writes a sentence per legal command; data-descs
carries them in step with data-targets; the ghost already following the
pointer shows the one for whatever legal target is under it, so the
explanation lands beside the target with no overlay layer to keep
aligned. ADR-0010 D1 binds -- the page renders it, never composes it.

Both mutations INITIALLY SURVIVED because the fixture's Attack card had
exactly one target, where an off-by-one shift and a truncation are both
no-ops. CB-EV-0014's lesson one level in: a fixture too thin to express
a failure is how the failure survives. Two attack targets now, both red.

T04: chaos rate d4 -> d8, window 2 open at 12 declarations, retiring if
an override changes nothing twice running. Window 1's condition was NOT
met -- both overrides changed the outcome -- so the mechanism is kept.
The weakest part of the decision is that it is a rate change argued from
n=2, so window 2 carries a falsifier: no override at all is evidence the
rate went too far, not that the mechanism is healthy.

InnerLoop.md hit 401 lines and the loadability gate fired; the rationale
moved to InnerLoopReference.md, structurally, per the standing precedent
that limits are not raised.

CB-WP-0017 settled at $9.48/40 against $5.19/23 reported mid-flight,
83% higher. Six for six, always low -- read by re-running the instrument
at the moment of quoting, which is CB-EV-0015's correction applied for
the first time.

make all exits 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-03 02:24:13 +02:00
84d688688d CB-WP-0012-T04: cb-render-html — stage 1 draws, and the browser is the toolkit
Delivers ADR-0007 Decision 1: visualization, drag-to-propose and hot-seat
play, at a measured marginal AM-4a cost of zero.

  games-ground shipped:  23 third-party crates
  cb-render-html:        23 third-party crates
  new crates introduced:  0

Measured, not asserted — the survey's own lesson. AM-4a is unmoved at
246,250; own source is 7,636 -> 9,652.

What shipped:
  crates/cb-render-html  doc.rs (HTML/SVG emission, incl. the relationship
                         graph), input.rs (pointer facts -> commands),
                         serve.rs (Guard, Request, loopback bind)
  tools/cb-play          hotseat.rs + `--serve PORT`

Per ADR-0007 Decision 2 there is NO cb-render-api and NO cb-render-null.
The renderer targets the existing Project trait; the port waits for
stage 2's wgpu implementation to be its second use.

The six controls, all live, all mutation-checked (8 mutations, each red
for its stated reason):

  1-3 token / Origin+Sec-Fetch-Site / explicit 127.0.0.1 bind
  4   a token-less request is refused, in the unit AND over a real socket
  5   JS may not construct commands — the page reports pointer facts, Rust
      resolves them against the legal list the aggregate already offered,
      and a test asserts the emitted script contains no game vocabulary
  6   the coverage gate crosses the language boundary: it walks the
      serialized view for leaf paths and requires each token to appear in
      the PARSED emitted document, with a test that the parse really is a
      parse (script/style contents must not count as rendered)

The gate fired on its author again, on its first run: ground_choices.*.
choice, ground_choices.*.problem and players.*.blame_from were in neither
list. The last is the one worth keeping — an EMPTY vector is a leaf path
of its own, and it now renders as an explicit absence.

Also, a mutation that did not go red: removing the Sec-Fetch-Site arm
alone left the cross-site test green, because the Origin check caught it
independently. Both had to be removed before the control bit. Recorded
because a control that passes for a reason you did not intend has not
been demonstrated.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 04:27:25 +02:00