Policy::choose takes the whole GroundState -- every face-down Problem's
suit and value, every seat's hand -- which is exactly what project()
exists to withhold. No shipped policy reads it, but the first thing a
competitive policy must do is VALUE a Problem, and value is the hidden
field. The trap goes live on the first line of the F27 work.
Established behaviourally rather than by narrowing the trait: vary only
what the seat cannot see, and the choice must not move. That binds every
policy including ones written later and outside this crate, without
their cooperation. The mirror of ADR-0013 D1 -- same kernel, two
searches, opposite permissions, discriminated by WHEN the question is
asked; a policy plays from inside an information set, so retrospective
permission would be strategy fusion.
Running the control found two defects IN THE CONTROL:
1. The rearrangements rotated hidden values 2<->3 together, leaving max
invariant -- so the deliberate peeker, which ranks by the largest
hidden value, was not caught. A control whose variation is invariant
under the statistic a violator reads is not a control.
2. It accused `random` of peeking, because it reused one policy instance
and compared a first call against a fourth. It takes a constructor
now, so every variant is judged from identical policy state.
Both are a difference in output read as evidence about hidden state --
the wrong-subject family, found twice inside a control written to detect
wrong subjects.
Three mutations, three red. The control is proven against a deliberate
violator before being trusted about compliant policies.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
status.py resolves `## Task: <text>` immediately above a task block;
`## Task T00:` resolved to nothing and the gate said so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The maintainer's observation decided the design: aspects partition the
GAME, strata partition our apparatus, and they are orthogonal. A module
is one coordinate change in aspect space with an obligation in every
stratum. So aspect identity must NOT be Rust types -- an aspect
ground-game adds would make clay-borg fail to parse a configuration
rather than fail to run it, welding the two coordinate systems at the
one place they must stay independent.
Chosen: identity as data (Configuration round-trips anything the catalog
names), behaviour exhaustive (Rules, no catch-all), resolve() between.
Decisive argument: the catalog ALREADY ships modules with a rules_delta
and status: proposed, so a per-aspect enum would report them as "unknown
module" -- indistinguishable from a typo, a false statement about the
edition, and this project's signature failure shape. Two facts need two
errors. Federating design authority is permanent, so the representation
must outlive the implementation.
Legacy ids alias forever through the catalog's own legacy_experiment_id,
on the standard-Np precedent: 26 recordings name them and the expansion
is exact, so there is nothing to deprecate.
T00 done: the schema-2 mirror had arrived with no digests (19 files) and
edition-check was red. Digests are now generated by WALKING editions/,
not typed -- two reviews already found hand-written lists that made
their own controls vacuous, and a mirror that grows a directory is what
breaks a maintained list. PROVENANCE-catalog.md was a file inside the
mirrored tree that upstream does not have; folded into our own
PROVENANCE.md, since provenance about the mirror does not belong inside
the thing it describes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The modes were already implemented; nothing had ever COMPARED them. The
scenarios were not implemented at all: edition::deal has taken a
scenario_id since it was written and the only caller passed the literal
"SCN_01", so 15 of 20 Problem cards had never been dealt by anything.
The seam was the whole mechanism and it sat unused, with nothing red
because nothing asked.
Scenario is now state (serde default SCN_01, so all 26 recordings replay
unchanged), selected by preset `scn-03-4p` with `standard-Np` still
meaning SCN_01, and by --scenario/SCENARIO= accepting ids, numbers or
titles, validated against the edition rather than a pattern.
The threshold now comes off the Scenario card, closing F25's hardcoded
5/7/9. The first version of that control was worthless and mutation said
so: all four scenarios print 5/7/9, so reverting to the bands left it
green. Split threshold_from() so it can be handed a card that disagrees.
The header read `scoring CommonProblem` where the Mode card is titled
COMMON PROBLEM, PERSONAL EDGE -- the defect CB-WP-0034 deleted from the
move buttons, still standing on the line that says what winning means.
The coverage probe was matching that Debug output and went red when it
was fixed: third instance (CB-WP-0024, CB-WP-0034). Page now carries the
premise, the mode's rules text, and the tiebreak.
scenario-panel plays 4x3x3. Findings: SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same
board (identical cells, pinned by a characterisation test); SCN_04 is
the hard board at 2p (52% vs 67/73%, the only deck needing two Repair);
and group success is EXACTLY equal across all three modes in all 36
cells, because greedy never reads state.mode -- filed F27, the two
competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play.
F28: SHARED GROUND's mastery subtracts penalties from the claimed COUNT
where the mode card's shared score is claimed VALUE. Raised, not fixed;
scoring is ground-game's to rule on.
Also fixes design.py reporting a backticked path as no reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-WP-0045 left "nothing explains what a scope does" open and gave a
FALSE reason: that scoping is our Variant so no printed sentence exists.
The H2 package ships Rules_Text.csv -- twenty-two passages of
player-facing rules -- and nothing in clay-borg had ever read the file.
A wrong reason for an open item is worse than an open item; it retires
the question. Filed as F26 against ground-game: a package that adds a
FILE is invisible where one that adds a column is not.
The scope rule now renders under the table in the edition's own words,
only when a non-global scope is in play, matched by heading rather than
row number, and absent (never paraphrased) if the edition drops it.
The trial log stamps its variant on the begin marker -- a session
property, not an eighth column -- read off state.variant rather than the
--variant flag, because a bare `state.variant = v` leaves H2 inert and a
flag-stamped log would put false provenance on real player words. An
unstamped log reports `unrecorded`, never `ground-darvo-r0`.
Six mutations, six red. The sixth is the finding: every trials.py fixture
built its marker out of BEGIN, so nine checks followed BEGIN away from
what hotseat.rs writes and stayed green while real logs broke. A fixture
built from the constant under test cannot test the constant -- the
control is now a literal, asserted from both sides.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Three reports from the 2026-08-08 sessions. H2 lands ("that seemed more
interesting"), two legibility gaps do not.
The number was only a FALLBACK for a missing title, so it showed exactly
when it was least useful. That was survivable while Problems sat in one
ordered row -- position WAS the number. CB-WP-0043 scattered them by
scope and took the implicit index with it, with nothing going red because
no test named the number.
DARVO.csv's mandatory_effect and Actions.csv's GROUND rules_text were
both vendored, both used only as tripwires, and neither ever reached the
player -- F18's shape again. The modes now explain themselves at the
point of choice, and NOT when no mode is on offer.
Tests assert the edition's own words verbatim (ADR-0015), the number over
every key in view.problems, and both halves of the mode explanation.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Reported as "I did a session and noted no changes" — correct, and the
fault was ours twice.
make ground passes no --variant, so the session was baseline, and
CB-WP-0043 deliberately leaves the baseline layout untouched because a
variant that redraws the baseline invalidates every prior look at it.
But the deeper defect is that nothing said so. The page named the round,
the step, the Lead, the scoring mode and the viewer, and never which rules
it was playing — GroundView did not even carry the variant. There was no
way from the screen to tell baseline from H1 from H2. A session that
cannot say which rules it is playing cannot report a rules change; the
player did the right thing and the instrument had nothing to tell them.
Now: variant on GroundView, `rules <id>` in the page header beside the
scoring mode, `rules <id>` in the inspector because a replay that cannot
say which rules produced it is the same defect in the other tool, and
make ground VARIANT=h2 so the capability is reachable.
Both coverage probes caught the new field independently — the render
crate's and cb-play's — the second time in two passes that they have
turned an addition into a legibility requirement instead of letting it be
silent state.
Verified by fetching the served page rather than by reading the code:
make ground VARIANT=h2 prints "rules: h2" and the page carries
"rules h2-scoped-problem-stress" with the scope labels; the baseline says
"rules ground-darvo-r0" and keeps its row.
Still open: nothing explains what a scope DOES, and the trial log header
does not record the variant either — the same defect one artifact along.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The picture had become a lie. A row across the middle says "these are the
table's" — true under the baseline, false under H2, where three of five
cards fall on particular seats.
Global goes to the middle, personal beside its owner, and bond on the mean
midpoint of the owner's Bond edges. A bond Problem whose owner has no Bond
is drawn as personal, because that is the rule — bond_network falls back
to the owner at degree 0 — and the picture must agree with the arithmetic.
The baseline page is untouched: the scoped layout is taken only when a
non-global scope exists, so every prior look at the baseline still holds.
The scope reaches the view as a separate marker rather than a field on
ProblemView, because the delta says "place owner marker on the card" — a
token beside a card — and it is public while the card is face down, which
a ProblemView variant could not express.
The coverage probe forced a real improvement. It demanded a text token for
the new fields and a POSITION is not a token — which is the probe being
right: position alone is invisible to text_of and to a screen reader, and
illegible when two anchors coincide. So each scoped Problem now says whose
it is: everyone's, P1's alone, P2's Bond network, and "P1's alone — no
Bond to share it" at degree 0.
The fixture gained a third Problem. With two, one of the three placement
rules was unexercised and the probe unsatisfiable — a fixture that cannot
reach a branch is how a rule ships untested.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured against ground-game's own §3 criteria, read from their design
note rather than reused from H1.
Criterion 1 met with room: greedy SHARED wins 120 at 3p and 175 at 4p,
against H1's 0 and 0, restoring 73% and 92% of baseline.
Criterion 3 met, and it was H1's clearest failure. Under H1 the
unregulated seat armed DARVO constantly and never won; under H2 it arms
and wins 13/13/57. "Non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins" is
exactly the shape H1 could not produce.
Criterion 2 met at 2p/4p/6p and missed at 3p — 1.50 against baseline's
1.57 — reported as a miss because that is what this sample says. The
mechanism is visible: H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+, because a flat
tax on every seat creates no variance at all. That is the clearest
statement of why scoping was the right correction.
Criterion 5 is the best evidence in the pass. Forcing every scope to
global and changing nothing else reproduces H1's collapse exactly — 120 to
0 at 3p, 175 to 0 at 4p — so the scoping is what saves it, not any other
difference between the packages.
Criterion 4 came out backwards and the prediction held. The workplan said
this panel might be unable to test it, because no policy here models
another seat or knows what a scope is; bond claim rates are LOWER than
personal at 3p and 4p, driven by suit availability rather than incentive.
Reported as untested with an incidental figure pointing the wrong way,
not as a refutation.
Wired into make panels. First pass declared after ADR-0021, so no chaos
roll is recorded.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
H2 is ground-game's answer to our H1 reading — that a flat +1 to every
seat is a solve-rate tax scaling with the number of Problems. Unclaimed
Problems now tick only the seats in scope: global (all), personal (the
owner), 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.
T01: the package is vendored with digests, and H2's Problems.csv is r0's
with one column added and NOTHING else changed — checked, not assumed,
because the delta claims deal_and_thresholds unchanged and a silent
difference would make every H2-vs-baseline comparison a comparison of two
boards as well as two rule sets. Scopes are read from the column, not
derived from the priority in Rust: F25 exists because we hardcoded numbers
the edition already carried.
T02: owner and scope are new ProblemState fields, both Option and both
skipped when None, so a baseline state serialises without them and every
recorded scenario's hash is untouched — asserted on the JSON, not assumed.
with_variant() replaces the bare field write, because state.variant = v
would leave owners unassigned: a silently wrong game rather than a failing
one.
T03: every named defect is mutation-proven — traversing Rivalry edges,
applying stacking once, a degree-0 owner ticking everyone, personal
hitting everyone. The degree-0 mutation MISSED first: the fallback lives
inside bond_network and the mutation broke the None-owner arm instead, a
different branch. It stayed green until aimed at the path the test
exercises. A mutation that misses is not evidence the test works.
T04: ownership is not a permission. Filtering SOLVE to the owner turns it
red, which is the regression this task exists for — the engine had no
owner concept before T02 added one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T02 — all chance derives from one root seed. Three chance points, all
reading it: the setup deck shuffle, the setup Lead draw, and the reshuffle
permutation. The Problems deal is not chance at all. So in extensive-form
terms the tree has a single chance node at the root.
That test was wrong first, and the mutation caught it. It compared state
hashes — and GroundState carries `seed` as a field, so "different seeds
differ" was true by construction. Mutating the shuffle away left it green.
It now compares the dealt configuration, and the same mutation fails it: a
wrong-subject error inside the control written for T02.
The reshuffle is a pure function of (seed, round) because K5 requires
deterministic replay, where a real table reshuffles independently. That is
a modelling restriction, not a defect, and it is now pinned.
T03 — commit/reveal checked in both directions: before Reveal each seat
sees its own selection and no other; after Reveal the information sets
merge, because an encoding that hides forever is not commit/reveal either.
T04 — ADR-0020 refuses the EFG port, and the blocker is T02 rather than
T01, which inverts what the workplan expected. Perfect recall looked like
the risk and is a constraint with a known answer: key on observation
histories. Making chance explicit is the expensive one — the reshuffle
would become a real chance node and break the K5 purity that every
recording, replay bundle and trial-note hash depends on. A port would
trade the property this project is built on for one it has never needed.
Track B's first move is therefore a question, not a build: take "is
exploitability meaningful for a co-operative game with a shared threshold"
to OpenSpiel on a toy model, where answering it costs nothing. D4 states
what being wrong looks like — OpenSpiel settling on a toy what three
rounds of policy sweeps could not — and makes watching for it the next
action.
Taxonomy §4.1 records the EFG correspondence with the test that checks
each row, so a later pass starts from a specification rather than a memory.
Chaos window 4 at three declarations. Window 3's verdict is now two
windows behind and should be evaluated rather than restated.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
turned out to be
T03. One table_svg: seats around an elliptical table starting at the
BOTTOM -- the viewer sits nearest the reader, as at a real table --
Problems and both stacks in the middle, each seat's played card between it
and the centre, relations drawn between seats.
Two renderers were DELETED: relations_svg and piles_svg. The task said one
table not two diagrams, and leaving the old ones would have meant drawing
the same thing twice and letting them drift.
No coverage probe cost, through a restructure that merged three diagrams
and removed two functions. Second confirmation of CB-WP-0027's finding: a
probe naming a FACT survives a reflow, one naming a PRESENTATION does not.
CB-WP-0024's "17 remaining" broke on a rendering change; this far larger
reflow broke nothing.
The new control is per seat count -- no two seat circles closer than 70px
at 2 through 6 -- asserted rather than eyeballed at three, which is the
only count anyone ever looks at.
T08 (CB-EV-0026). Seven of nine observations were engine defects, one was
a design finding, one was already true and nobody could tell.
Observations 4 and 5 both dissolved and had ONE cause: nothing on the page
said how drawing works, so a player built a mental model to fill the gap
and reported the gap as two feature requests.
The import gap was worse than "one of nineteen" -- 5 of 13 columns read
from the file we DID vendor, discarded at parse time for eight days. Rule
coverage was 59/59 throughout. The gate measures whether rules are
EXERCISED; nothing measures whether a player can READ the game, and
nothing cheaply could, which is why the person playing it is the
instrument.
TWO GATES WERE WRITTEN FOR A SMALLER WORLD, and neither was wrong when
written. edition-check compared one recorded digest against Problems.csv
regardless of which file it described -- correct with one vendored file,
comparing across files with four. And a cb-play test asserted the literal
"game over" and went red when a won game said "solved", which was T06
working; it now asserts the heading against the OUTCOME and covers the
no-outcome case the original never touched.
Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in eleven declarations at d8.
Third and final statement of it: d8 bought rarity by spending evidence,
and a mechanism producing no data across a full window cannot be evaluated
by that window.
make all: exit 0. 57 render tests, 26 cb-play, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
