Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
631fb41fc2 CB-WP-0029 T01-T03: components you can count, and a supply that does not bind
ADR-0016, Tokens.csv vendored, tracks and discs on the table, and a supply
audit that found nothing and says so.

T03 MEASURED BEFORE T01 DECIDED. 750 games, 2-6 seats, greedy and random:
Protection reaches 1 per seat and 2 on the table against a supply of 6;
Denied 3 of 5; relation links EXACTLY 12 OF 12 and never more; Focus/Blame
0 conflicts. The link row is the interesting one -- GR-L01's two-slot rule
IS the twelve-token supply written twice, which is the shape of a supply
needing no separate enforcement.

AND THE FIRST VERSION OF THE FOCUS/BLAME CHECK WAS WRONG. It compared a
seat's own placed Focus against its OWN blame_from -- but that list holds
OTHER players' discs, so they are different tokens. It reported 2
conflicts; corrected, it reports 0. Fifth instance of this project's
recurring defect, a number computed correctly about the wrong subject, and
the first caught before it left the repo rather than by a reviewer.

D2: a token is a VIEW, not a type. The aggregate gains no `Token` --
adding one would create a second source of truth for Stress, and the first
time they disagreed the bug would be invisible because both would look
internally consistent.

D3: quantity does NOT bind, and the reason is not the measurement. A
component limit the rules do not state is not a rule. Refusing a seventh
Protection token would enforce something nobody ruled -- CB-WP-0023's
error inverted: SOLVE was OFFERED where it could not act; this would
REFUSE where the rules allow. The check ships as a standing control, so a
future violation becomes a question for ground-game (does the box bound
the game, or do the rules?) rather than a bound the engine invented.
Registered as F22, withdrawn: a stated negative, because a survey that
finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one never run.

D4: Stress on a 0-5 track that turns red at 5 where DARVO arms, DARVO on
OFF/DENY/ATTACK/REVERSE, Freedom as the two-sided disc the edition says it
is, Protection and Blame counted, Lead and Round on the table.

Two tests broke on token discs and both were FIXTURE defects:
seat_centres matched every <circle> and track stops are circles. Seats now
carry class="seat".

The table height limit went 460 -> 500 as a CORRECTION, not a concession.
460 had no derivation; 500 does -- ~800px viewport less ~120 header and
~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging was 620.
CB-WP-0021 T06's rule is to fix the measurement rather than lower the
floor, and an underived number is a measurement defect.

make all: exit 0. 66 render tests, 26 cb-play.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 09:54:20 +02:00
cf52e6bcbf CB-WP-0029: the tokens on the table — declare and register
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Declaration 12 of chaos window 2, which CLOSES IT. Structural M (imports
another edition file under AM-4's budgets), chaos d8=4, no override.

Tokens.csv turns out to carry more than names. Every token has a
`quantity` -- 6 Protection, 5 Denied, 12 relation links -- and a component
count is a limit a simulation does not have unless it is told. protection
is saturating_add(1) at lib.rs:986 with no upper bound, against an edition
that ships six tokens for six players. T03 measures whether that matters
rather than assuming either way.

And `sides` is the second interesting column: Freedom and Focus/Blame are
each ONE DOUBLE-SIDED TOKEN, not two states. The engine holds Focus in a
map and Blame in a list; whether those can disagree with a single physical
token is worth checking.

T03 is shaped against a specific error: whatever it finds is a FINDING,
not a fix. A component limit the rules do not state is underdetermined and
belongs to ground-game, and the engine must not start enforcing a bound
nobody ruled. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered where it could
not act; inventing a limit is the same error in the other direction.

The workplan also names the window-2 verdict as DUE. Its retirement
condition was untestable throughout -- eleven declarations, zero 8s, zero
overrides -- and recording that is a change to how the loop constrains
itself, so it is its own tier-M pass rather than a task here. Named so it
is not lost between passes, which is how the ten rulings went uncollected.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 09:45:41 +02:00
51efe55d14 fix: the controls sit below the log, and ending a session greys the page
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Tier S (fixes inside a boundary; chaos d8=3, no override). Two
observations from play, both about what the page says has happened.

The controls moved BELOW the log: you read what happened, then decide what
to do next. They were above it, which asks for the decision first.

And sealing now marks the WHOLE PAGE inert, not just the controls. A
greyed-out button beside a full-colour table still reads as a live game
with one broken control; the session has ended and everything on screen is
a record of it. The status line stays legible on purpose -- it is the one
thing still worth reading.

THE STUB NEEDED A BODY classList TO MAKE THAT TESTABLE. Without it "the
session visibly ended" would have been a claim about CSS with nothing
checking it, which is precisely CB-WP-0016's finding: a stub too thin to
express a failure is how the failure survives. The harness reports the
sealed page through the status channel with a NUL-separated marker --
ugly, deliberate, and documented, because widening the return type would
touch every caller for one boolean.

Both directions asserted: a `closed` reply seals the page, an `ok:
dealing` reply does NOT -- otherwise the seal test would pass for a page
that greys itself whenever it is touched, breaking `play again`.

63 render tests, 26 cb-play, check and loop-lint clean.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 22:38:32 +02:00
b12725566b fix: a click target wearing a drag affordance made the controls look dead
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Tier S (a fix inside a boundary; chaos d8=7 from the previous roll stands
for this continuation). Two observations from play that are ONE defect.

`play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move buttons carried `.pick`,
which is cursor:grab. The stylesheet has .btn{cursor:pointer} BEFORE
.pick{cursor:grab}, so grab won.

A GRAB CURSOR INVITES A DRAG. A drag released over nothing posts nothing,
so the player picked up the button, let go, and the page did nothing. It
looked dead because the affordance told them to do the one thing that does
not work. Reported as two separate things -- "the button shows a hand to
pick up that it probably shouldn't" and "I can't start another game or
stop the server" -- and the first causes the second.

The click path itself was never broken: driving again->again and
done->done through the JS harness posts correctly. The logic was fine and
the invitation was wrong.

Click targets now carry `.tap` -- pointer cursor, same press affordance.
This extends CB-WP-0017's rule (interactive and inert must not look
identical) to: click and drag must not look identical either. The test
asserts both directions, because checking only that buttons lost `.pick`
would pass for a page with no affordances at all.

Registered F20 (applied) and F21.

F21 IS THE ONE I COULD NOT REPRODUCE: dragging did not work until after
the first note was saved. Ruled out the plausible mechanisms -- the
gesture logic posts correctly against the served page, the drag ghost
carries pointer-events:none so it cannot intercept the drop, and the
markup is identical before and after since the 303 re-renders the same
page from the same state. Remaining candidates are a <details> toggle
shifting layout mid-drag, a first-load timing difference, or browser-level
pointer capture. Reproducing it needs a browser, which no test here has --
the same gap F19 named. Recorded as unreproduced rather than given a
speculative fix.

And the fourth observation is confirmation, not a bug: "drawing my cards
from the deck is not implemented, I did not need to do that" is exactly
what CB-WP-0028 T04 determined and deliberately did not build. It is the
first evidence that importing the card text closed the comprehension gap
that produced the earlier click-the-deck request.

make all: exit 0. 62 render tests, 26 cb-play.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 22:25:06 +02:00