6 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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>
|
|||
| a6e7acd4cf |
Register F19: the engine shipped a table nobody could play on
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
CB-WP-0028's overhead view was 620px tall, so the action cards sat a screen below the Problems and dragging between them was physically impossible. Seats were drawn inside the table; the `table` drop target was a card among the buttons rather than the drawn surface. make all passed throughout. Every test asserted the DOM was correct -- which it was -- and the JS harness posts a correct gesture against a page a human cannot drag on. Kind `degenerate`: it fires and collapses play. State `applied`: fixed the same day, with height, seat-position and single-drop-zone proxies added. They are PROXIES -- nothing here lays out a browser, and the gap CB-EV-0026 named a day earlier is unclosed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 02402c36b2 |
CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
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> |
|||
| 7ed9fc730a |
CB-WP-0025 T06/T07: a difficulty baseline that reports its own confound
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
T06. games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs, make difficulty, wired into make self-tests, and a report file in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0005 with a hub message pointing at it. THE REPORT OPENS WITH THE RETRACTION, because what this task was written to send was withdrawn by T02 and GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly that number. They are told, in the first section, that we nearly sent them "the game is too easy at 5-6 seats" and why it was wrong. seats winnable greedy random first-legal spread 2p 60% 60.0% 5.0% 76.7% 71.7 3p 93% 88.3% 6.7% 25.0% 81.7 4p 100% 93.3% 6.7% 30.0% 86.7 5p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 6p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 SPREAD justifies the whole redesign: 71.7 to 100.0 points between three trivial policies. The table now shows why no single rate is a difficulty rather than asserting it. And the 5-6 rows point the OPPOSITE way from the withdrawn claim -- first-legal 0% against greedy 100% is the widest spread in the table, which suggests play matters MORE there, not less. Neither reading is established and the report says so. The confound is stated in the tool's own output, not only in prose: `winnable` is conditioned on greedy's play up to the final round, because searching from round 1 is unaffordable. Presenting it as a property of the deal would repeat this pass's error in a subtler form -- which is exactly how a corrected project reintroduces a defect. NO THRESHOLD CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. The instrument can fail (spec §5): a witness must replay to a win, an unwinnable position must report searched-out rather than a budget cut, a one-node budget must not claim exhaustion, and the policy panel must actually disagree. difficulty-baseline.rs marked superseded, kept as the survey's dated snapshot. Registered as F16, inconsistent / withdrawn. T07. evidence/CB-EV-0024. Five of nine defects came only from the review; four from execution, and all four of those were in work written after it. The wrong-denominator family now has five instances and still no control -- facts-check catches copies that disagree, nothing catches a number computed correctly against the wrong base. Tier L was an over-declaration (no port, structurally M) and paid for itself anyway, because the review is L-only. Chaos window 2 will close with zero overrides, making its retirement condition untestable. Named as open rather than implied done: the witness is NOT wired to the ending page. The search works; the browser cannot ask it yet. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 8d58568013 |
CB-WP-0024: the table you can watch
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned
out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the
table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes
either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is
readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest
control is a person playing it.
T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said
"close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE
SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table
and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect,
and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every
control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that
made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null),
which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser.
The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned
{then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every
line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test
in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable
from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to
express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the
reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports
surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control
asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal.
T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question
the task required settling: it already works, at
games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that
ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state
before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a
reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that
ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this
underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message.
T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The
face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden
carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The
leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two
different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show,
because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws
nothing.
T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What
"cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer
is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and
games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at
different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE --
the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence
the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use
of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than
from play.
make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
|||
| 6be9fbc9af |
CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
