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>
Five scenarios encoded U-item defaults with no owner and no review date,
so they could shape the kernel indefinitely while looking handled.
Each now carries provisional_owner and provisional_raised, and the
runtime's ScenarioFile learned both fields (deny_unknown_fields meant
adding them to YAML alone would have failed every scenario -- the parser
had to agree).
make coverage reports every provisional item with its owner and age in
days, warns on any with no owner, and warns past 30 days. It WARNS
rather than breaking the build, on purpose: the ruling is ground-game's
to make and the kernel cannot make it for them. What the loop can
enforce is that evidence files list them, which is now stated in
GroundRules.
rule-coverage --self-test gained an assertion that every provisional
item has both fields, so the next one added without them fails a
command rather than passing quietly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
