coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Compare commits

base: coulomb:6be9fbc9af852ab6afad8eee56edc791b15c7654
Branches Tags
coulomb:main
..
compare: coulomb:c02edef8ba80ed0d1546ce5dabc05934e22fcc8c
Branches Tags
coulomb:main

No commits in common. "6be9fbc9af852ab6afad8eee56edc791b15c7654" and "c02edef8ba80ed0d1546ce5dabc05934e22fcc8c" have entirely different histories.
6be9fbc9af ... c02edef8ba

18 changed files with 147 additions and 1005 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

1
Makefile
View file

@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ self-tests:
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/size-metrics.py --self-test
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/runtime-metrics.py --self-test
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/replay-test.py --self-test
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/design-baseline.py --self-test
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/design.py --self-test
$(PY) $(TOOLS)/edition-check.py --self-test

14
WORK-RECORDS.md
View file

@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
| workplan | CB-WP-0019 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0019-the-am4-family.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0020 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0020-the-table-you-can-read.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0021 | active | — | workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0022 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0022 | active | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0023 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0024 | ready | — | workplans/CB-WP-0024-the-table-you-can-watch.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0025 | ready | — | workplans/CB-WP-0025-could-we-have-won.md |
@ -147,12 +147,12 @@
| task | CB-WP-0021-T05 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md |
| task | CB-WP-0021-T06 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T01 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T02 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T04 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T05 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T06 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T07 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T02 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T03 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T04 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T05 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T06 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0022-T07 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md |
| task | CB-WP-0023-T01 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md |
| task | CB-WP-0023-T02 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md |
| task | CB-WP-0023-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md |

24
crates/cb-game-runtime/src/scenario.rs
View file

@ -31,30 +31,6 @@ pub struct ScenarioFile {
/// reportable by `make coverage`.
#[serde(default)]
pub provisional_raised: String,
/// ISO date the owner ruled, which is what ENDS `provisional`
/// (CB-WP-0026). A confirmed default is no longer provisional — the
/// flag comes off and this records what settled it, because deleting
/// the flag without the ruling loses why the question closed.
#[serde(default)]
pub ruled: String,
/// Who ruled. Distinct from `provisional_owner`, which says who *must*
/// rule; this says who *did*.
#[serde(default)]
pub ruled_by: String,
/// The ruling in its own words. Quoted rather than paraphrased —
/// three of the ten U-item rulings carry conditions that a summary
/// loses (ADR-0012; GROUND-WP-0002 T05).
#[serde(default)]
pub ruled_note: String,
/// Which `§Underdetermined` U-item this scenario encodes the default
/// for, if any.
///
/// **Named rather than inferred.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six of ten
/// U-items had provisional scenarios; measured, exactly one named its
/// item, and the rest was guesswork nobody could check. A scenario
/// claims a U-item here or it does not claim one at all.
#[serde(default)]
pub encodes_u_item: String,
pub seed: u64,
pub setup: Setup,
pub commands: Vec<CommandStep>,

176
evidence/CB-EV-0019-import-the-edition.md
View file

@ -1,176 +0,0 @@
# CB-EV-0019 — import the edition
CB-WP-0021 T04. Tier M (structural M — adds or refuses an external
dependency and changes how a game is set up; chaos d8=7 → no override).
Closed 2026-08-05, four days after the code landed.
**Delivered:** [ADR-0011](../decisions/ADR-0011-vendor-the-edition.md),
`editions/ground-darvo-r0/Problems.csv` with a digest, a ~150-line reader
in `games/ground/src/edition.rs`, `tools/edition-check.py`, and the ruled
deal — Surface ∪ hidden `1..=k`.
---
## 1. What the import cost, and the budget it was measured against
**The declaration's constraint was measured against the wrong
denominator, and the ADR corrected it.** CB-WP-0021 said a CSV crate costs
21,613 lines against AM-4a's **3,798** of headroom — *"5.7× over, settled
by measurement rather than preference."*
`setup` and `problem_priorities` are `#[cfg(feature = "scenarios")]`.
**They are not in the shipped runtime**, so AM-4a never sees them. Against
AM-4b's graph:
| | lines |
|---|---:|
| AM-4b headroom | 19,742 |
| `csv` marginal (`csv` + `csv-core`; `ryu`/`itoa`/`memchr` already present) | **17,651** |
**It fits, with 2,091 to spare — and was refused anyway**, on proportion:
89% of everything the budget had left, to read 20 rows. What shipped is a
hand-rolled reader we own.
**That is the third premise this pass had to correct**, and the second
where a real number was computed against a mis-chosen denominator. The
pattern is now well enough attested to name: *this project's arithmetic
errors are not in the arithmetic.* CB-WP-0022 T02 produced two more of the
same shape four days later.
Current dependency position, `make dep-weight`:
```
AM-4c shipped-runtime 7,976 own lines per 100k third-party (diagnostic)
AM-4c dev-toolchain 1,729 own lines per 100k third-party (diagnostic)
```
## 2. What broke — and the hash blast radius was predicted, not discovered
The task asked which it was. **Predicted, and then measured to be almost
nothing.**
T01's brief said Problem values and suits enter `GroundState`, which is
hashed (K7), so *"every recorded state hash changes"*, and required the
blast radius be established **before writing code**. ADR-0011 §Decision 3
did exactly that:
| | |
|---|---:|
| scenario files pinning a state hash | **0** |
So the feared radius was ~0. Scenarios assert on state *blocks*, not
hashes; `replay-test` re-executes bundles and restores them; AM-7's probe
asserts per-segment hashes within a run rather than against recorded
literals.
**No hash was grandfathered and none recorded as "was"** — ADR-0011's
words: *a recorded hash that outliving the content it describes is a lie
with a timestamp.*
Verified today:
- `make replay-test` — **14/14 controls passed**, including *"the bundle
still replays after every control restored it"*;
- `make am7` — scaling **0.985 / 0.998 / 1.018** (worst/median/best of 9)
against a 0.9 floor. Green, after T06 fixed the *measurement* rather
than lowering the floor.
**What did break** was the scenario corpus's data assumptions: six
scenario files needed value/suit updates (`gr-a02-solve`,
`gr-e03-common-problem`, `gr-e04-coalitions`, `gr-f02-no-gate`,
`gr-p05-solve-legality`) because they encoded stand-in numbers. That is
the expected cost of replacing invented data with real data, and every one
was a data edit rather than a logic change.
## 3. Do the endings mean anything now? Yes — and the margin is one point
This is the question the pass existed for. Played today, 2 players,
all-bots:
```
OUTCOME total 4 / threshold 5 group failure
personal: P1 2 P2 2
mastery 2
problems: [1] Repair 2 claimed by P2 [2] Clarify 2 [3] Boundary 2 claimed by P1
```
**Three Problems worth 2 each — 6 available against a threshold of 5.**
The bots claimed two of three, scored 4, and lost by one point.
**This confirms T02's control by play.** That control said: *"at 2p that
means a **full clear**, since 2+2+2 against 5 leaves no slack."* It is
exactly right — at two seats, leaving any single Problem unclaimed loses
the game. The endings are not merely reachable; they are **tight**, which
is a far better answer than "reachable" and was not guaranteed by the
ruling.
**And it retires the finding this pass was built around.** GR-E01 was
raised as *"unreachable below 5 seats"* on 4/6/9 against 5/7/9. The real
deal is 6/9/12 against 5/7/9. `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p` is now
`gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p`, non-provisional, and the finding was
**formally withdrawn to ground-game on 2026-08-05** (CB-WP-0022 T06) —
because it took an adversarial review, four days later, for anyone to
notice that this pass had already falsified it.
**That is the sharpest thing in this evidence file.** The work that
disproved GR-E01 is *in this workplan*. The workplan that quoted GR-E01 as
its founding example was written the next day. Nothing connected them
until a separate agent ran `git log`.
## 4. Quoting CB-WP-0020's cost — the instrument refuses
T04 asked for CB-WP-0020's cost by re-running the instrument. It cannot be
supplied:
```
$ python3 tools/cb-cost.py --slug CB-WP-0020 --by-task
ABORT — no transcripts found for CB-WP-0020
```
**The instrument aborts rather than estimating, which is correct
behaviour** and is why the number is absent instead of wrong. CB-WP-0020's
transcripts are outside the retained window.
What the instrument does report, run today:
```
main $ 548.03 output 2,125,069 tok $ 56.16 10.1%
subagent tree $ 5.50 cache_read 750,152,134 tok $394.44 71.3%
TOTAL $ 553.53 write_1h 9,233,711 tok $ 97.48 17.6%
UNATTRIBUTED $230.34 41.6%
CB-WP-0021-T01 $ 17.15 3.1% PROVISIONAL — this pass's own
CB-WP-0021-T06 $ 14.31 2.6% PROVISIONAL — this pass's own
```
**The two CB-WP-0021 rows are provisional and must not be quoted as
final.** They are this pass's own spend, measured while writing this file,
so the number is still moving — `loop-lint`'s `own-cost` rule caught the
first draft asserting them flat, which is the rule working.
**41.6% unattributed is the number worth carrying forward**, not any
per-task figure. A cost instrument that cannot say where two-fifths of the
spend went is a partial instrument, and the retention window is why the
chain of *"quote the previous pass's cost"* — a rule designed to keep
costs comparable across passes — **breaks after roughly four passes.**
That rule should either be bounded to what the window holds, or the window
extended. It is not this pass's to decide; it is recorded here because
this is the first pass where the chain actually snapped.
## 5. Chaos window 2
**Declaration 4 of 12.** Structural M, d8 = 7, no override. The roll is
recorded per §Loop tiers even though it changed nothing.
Window 2 standing: no override has yet changed an outcome. The retirement
condition — *retire if an override changes nothing twice running* — has
not been triggered, because there have been no overrides to evaluate.
## Open after this pass
- **The cost chain is broken** (§4) and the rule that depends on it needs a
bound.
- The wrong-denominator pattern (§1) now has three instances and no
control. `facts-check` catches copies that disagree; nothing catches a
number computed correctly against the wrong base.

209
evidence/CB-EV-0022-collect-the-rulings.md
View file

@ -1,209 +0,0 @@
# CB-EV-0022 — collect the rulings
CB-WP-0026 T05. Tier S (structural S — applies rulings inside an existing
capability; chaos d8=6 → no override). Declaration 9 of chaos window 2.
Closed 2026-08-05.
**Delivered:** ten rulings recorded in `§Underdetermined`, five
`provisional: true` flags lifted, four scenario schema fields, the
`encodes_u_item` declaration, and an empty finding queue.
---
## 1. How long the answers sat, and what noticed them
**Two days**, and the thing that noticed was **the register's first run** —
not a human, not the adversarial review.
`ground-game` ruled all ten U-items on **2026-08-03** (GROUND-WP-0002 T05),
every one confirmed. On the same day CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10
ruled."* Two days later CB-WP-0022 built the register recording them as
`reported`, and the adversarial review — which found four other things —
did not catch it either. `make design` did, on its first execution.
**This is the symmetric failure nobody designed for.** CB-WP-0022 was
shaped end to end around *we send findings and nobody reads them*: the
four-day unread inbox is quoted in the declaration, the survey, the ADR
and the spec. The mirror case — *they answer and we do not collect it* —
appears in none of them.
It is arguably the worse of the two. An unread message is visible as
silence; a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in
progress.
## 2. Did any confirmed default fail to match the kernel? No.
This was the control that mattered. Every ruling was a *confirmation* of
what we told `ground-game` we simulate — so a red scenario would have
meant **we described our own behaviour incorrectly to them**, a defect in
our report rather than in their ruling, and the most serious class
available since it would be about our own code.
```
make sim → 26 passed, 59 rules covered
```
**No scenario went red.** The five confirmed defaults are the behaviour
implemented. That is the strongest single result here and it is a
negative: nothing was wrong.
## 3. The mapping gap was not what the survey said, and I reproduced the defect writing it
CB-RES-0007: *"six of the ten already have provisional scenarios."*
**Measured: one.** And the interesting part is how the other nine were
lost.
I wrote two mappings from the `covers:` lists and **both were wrong**:
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts |
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND) |
Both were plausible from `covers:`. Neither survived reading the
description. **These are the third and fourth instances of this exact
defect** — a link that looks right from metadata, asserted without
checking what the artifact exercises — and the first two reached
`ground-game`.
So the answer to *"do the four unlinked scenarios encode U-item defaults
at all?"* is: **at least two of the four do not**, and the survey's "six of
ten" was not an under-documented truth. It was wrong.
`encodes_u_item` is now a declaration a scenario makes or omits, and
`design.py` asserts the file names what it claims.
### The check's own first version was the same looseness
Written as `grep -lE "\bU<n>\b"`, it went red the moment two scenarios
recorded *why they do not* encode U1 and U5 — reporting `['U1','U2','U5']`.
**A mention is not a claim.** That is precisely the imprecision that let
*"six of the ten have provisional scenarios"* stand unchallenged for five
days: someone grepped for U-item strings and counted hits. The check now
asserts on the declaration.
## 4. The queue reached 0
```
QUEUE (open findings) (none)
open, lacking a reproduction 0 target 0
closed (log) 12 [U1..U10, F11, F13]
with a resolving reproduction 3/12 = 25%
notes 2 F12, F14
```
**`9 → 0`**, the number CB-WP-0026 T04 named. First evidence that
ADR-0012 D5's lifecycle is real rather than drawn: findings entered a
state, moved through it, and left the queue.
**25% reproduced must not be read as a failure.** Nine U-items closed by a
**ruling**, and a ruling is not an artifact. The metric is now honest
about something the survey's 33% concealed: most of our findings close
because someone answered them, not because anything demonstrates them.
**What the lifecycle could not express** — the honest gap: `applied` is
defined as *the source changed and the provisional default was deleted*.
Here the rulings **confirmed** our defaults, so nothing in the rules moved;
what changed is that the flags came off. The state fits, but the
definition had to be read generously. If a future ruling *overturns* a
default, `applied` will mean something materially different from what it
meant today, and D5 does not distinguish them.
## 5. Two things the schema caught
**`ScenarioFile` is `deny_unknown_fields`**, so five scenarios failed to
parse until `ruled`, `ruled_by`, `ruled_note` and `encodes_u_item` were
declared in the Rust struct. A corpus that accepted unknown metadata would
let a typo'd `encodes_u_iem` sit forever claiming nothing — and this
pass's whole subject is claims nobody checks.
**`record.rs` had to set them explicitly.** A recorded game is evidence of
what happened, not a claim about an undetermined rule. Filling the fields
via `..Default::default()` would have been shorter and would let a
recording silently inherit a U-item claim, pointing a reproduction at a
finding it has nothing to do with.
## 5b. Two gates went red for the best possible reason
Lifting the last five provisional flags broke two positive controls, and
**both were broken in the same way**: they asserted against live repo data
instead of constructing the condition they test.
**`rule-coverage.py`** required `bool(prov)` — *at least one provisional
item must exist*. That guard was the right instinct (a control that passes
vacuously is worthless) wired the wrong way. With nothing provisional, it
went red. It now builds a fixture, asserts the missing-owner case is
**caught**, and reports the live count as a diagnostic — because **there is
no number of provisional items this project should have.**
**`design-baseline.py`** pinned *"the measured baseline is 2 of 6"* and
reported `1/6`. Its "six provisional defaults" row **globbed
`provisional: true` at run time**, so the dated snapshot was never a
snapshot — it drifted with the repo. C2 dismantled this tool four hours
earlier and missed this: a hand-maintained dict with one dynamically
computed row is worse than a fully hand-maintained one, because the
recomputed row silently disagrees with the date in the header.
Frozen to the literal list it measured on 2026-08-03, and **removed from
`make self-tests`** — that target is *"a positive control for every
reporting tool"*, and per ADR-0012 D8 this is no longer a reporting tool.
Leaving it wired in meant a superseded instrument could fail the build.
**The pattern across both**: a control that reads the world it is meant to
audit will eventually audit a world that has moved. Neither was caught by
review; both were caught by the world moving.
## 6. The register moved, and ADR-0012 D2 gave way to loadability
`specs/GroundRules.md` crossed the ~400-line limit and `loop-lint`
required a split. ADR-0012 D2 said **"no new file"**, so this is a
deviation and is recorded as one.
**D2's substance holds.** Its argument was *one register, not a second
mechanism competing with the first* — and `specs/FindingRegister.md` is
that same register, moved, still driving off the `provisional`/ruling
machinery, still the only one. What was traded away is the literal "no new
file", which was D2's *implementation*, not its reason.
It also resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself: *"a finding about the
engine's behaviour sits in a document about the game."* Now it does not.
## 7. Chaos window 2
**Declaration 9 of 12.** Structural S, d8 = 6, no override. Recorded per
§Loop tiers even though it changed nothing.
**Window 2 still has no override to evaluate** — nine declarations, zero
8s. The retirement condition (*retire if an override changes nothing twice
running*) cannot be assessed, and at d8 the expected count over twelve
declarations is 1.5, so this is unremarkable rather than evidence of
anything.
## 8. Cost
CB-WP-0022's cost, by re-running the instrument:
```
CB-WP-0022-T05 $ 6.43
CB-WP-0022-T01 $ 4.17
CB-WP-0022-T02 $ 3.56 (the separate reviewer's own spend is in the subagent tree)
CB-WP-0022-T04 $ 1.92
CB-WP-0022-T03 $ 1.01
```
**The chain did not snap this time** — CB-EV-0019 §4 predicted it might,
having found `cb-cost.py --slug CB-WP-0020` aborts for want of retained
transcripts. CB-WP-0022 is recent enough to still be in the window. **The
bound CB-EV-0019 asked for is still owed**; this pass is evidence that the
rule works for a pass one step back, not that it works generally.
## Open after this pass
- **Nine U-items are `applied` with no reproduction.** That is recorded,
not hidden, but it means nine rules rest on a ruling nobody can re-run.
Cheap to fix incrementally: each needs one scenario naming its item.
- **`applied` conflates *confirmed* with *overturned*** (§4). It will
matter the first time a ruling goes against us.
- **The cost-chain bound** (CB-EV-0019 §4) is still unwritten.

9
games/ground/src/record.rs
View file

@ -153,15 +153,6 @@ pub fn to_scenario(
provisional: false,
provisional_owner: String::new(),
provisional_raised: String::new(),
// A recording is evidence of what happened, not a claim about an
// undetermined rule, so it carries no ruling and encodes no
// U-item. Set explicitly rather than by `..Default::default()`:
// a recorded game silently inheriting a U-item claim would be a
// reproduction pointing at a finding it has nothing to do with.
ruled: String::new(),
ruled_by: String::new(),
ruled_note: String::new(),
encodes_u_item: String::new(),
seed,
setup: Setup {
players,

8
scenarios/ground/gr-a04-bond-support.yaml
View file

@ -4,11 +4,9 @@ description: >
token is readied (GR-A04, GR-F04). A Support with no relation forms no
Bond, because GR-L02 requires the target's consent.
covers: [GR-A04, GR-F04, GR-L02, GR-L05]
ruled: 2026-08-03
ruled_by: ground-game
ruled_note: >
GROUND-WP-0002 T05/T03, 2026-08-03 — confirm: consent required; no auto-Bond from a no-relation Support.
Does NOT encode U1: U1 asks WHEN the target accepts, and this asserts only THAT consent is required.
provisional: true
provisional_owner: ground-game
provisional_raised: 2026-07-31
seed: 42
setup:
players: 3

8
scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml
View file

@ -4,11 +4,9 @@ description: >
OFF is set to DENY (GR-D01, GR-R08). Stress clamps at 5 on every
application (GR-F01 under the U2 default).
covers: [GR-D01, GR-R08, GR-F01]
ruled: 2026-08-03
ruled_by: ground-game
ruled_note: >
GROUND-WP-0002 T05/T03, 2026-08-03 — confirm: clamp on every application; DARVO still arms only at End (GR-R08). Encodes the U2 default.
encodes_u_item: U2
provisional: true
provisional_owner: ground-game
provisional_raised: 2026-07-31
seed: 42
setup:
players: 3

8
scenarios/ground/gr-d05-darvo-reverse.yaml
View file

@ -4,11 +4,9 @@ description: >
gives them +1 Stress and the owner one Protection token, then the
owner takes −2 Stress and the sequence ends (GR-D05, GR-D07).
covers: [GR-D05, GR-D07, GR-T01]
ruled: 2026-08-03
ruled_by: ground-game
ruled_note: >
GROUND-WP-0002 T05/T03, 2026-08-03 — confirm: the printed REVERSE stage plus U5.
Does NOT encode U5: U5 is the REJECTED Reverse (GROUND—ND), and this is the unrejected stage.
provisional: true
provisional_owner: ground-game
provisional_raised: 2026-07-31
seed: 42
setup:
players: 3

7
scenarios/ground/gr-e02-shared-ground.yaml
View file

@ -4,10 +4,9 @@ description: >
shared total against the player-count threshold, with a Mastery
rating reduced by each Blame token and each Denied Problem.
covers: [GR-R09, GR-E01, GR-E02, GR-P03]
ruled: 2026-08-03
ruled_by: ground-game
ruled_note: >
GROUND-WP-0002 T03, 2026-08-03 — confirm: encode Modes.csv MODE_COOP as printed. Encodes no U-item; it was provisional on the mode data, not on an undetermined rule.
provisional: true
provisional_owner: ground-game
provisional_raised: 2026-07-31
seed: 42
setup:
players: 3

7
scenarios/ground/gr-e04-coalitions.yaml
View file

@ -4,10 +4,9 @@ description: >
Rivalries do not connect, and an unbonded player is a coalition of
one. Personal scores subtract Blame (GR-E03, GR-T02).
covers: [GR-E03, GR-E04, GR-O03]
ruled: 2026-08-03
ruled_by: ground-game
ruled_note: >
GROUND-WP-0002 T03, 2026-08-03 — confirm: encode Modes.csv MODE_COALITION as printed. Encodes no U-item; provisional on the mode data.
provisional: true
provisional_owner: ground-game
provisional_raised: 2026-07-31
seed: 42
setup:
players: 3

138
specs/FindingRegister.md
View file

@ -1,138 +0,0 @@
# The finding register
Design findings about **GROUND**, with their reproductions. Governed by
[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
and [ADR-0012](../decisions/ADR-0012-the-design-instrument.md). Reported
by `make design`.
**Split out of `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` on 2026-08-05** when that
file crossed the ~400-line loadability limit. ADR-0012 D2 said *"no new
file"* and this is a new file — but D2's substance was **one register, not
a second mechanism competing with the first**, and that holds: this *is*
§Underdetermined's register, moved, still driving off the same
`provisional`/ruling machinery. D2 also named the awkwardness this
resolves — a finding about the engine sitting in a document about the
game.
The U-items themselves, with their defaults and rulings, stay in
[`GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`](GroundRules.md); this file tracks them
*as findings*.
**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
`make design`.
<!-- design-register:begin -->
| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U1 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U2 | underdetermined | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U3 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U4 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U5 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U6 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U7 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U8 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U9 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U10 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
| F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
<!-- design-register:end -->
- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
one exists.
- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
`-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
recording the artifact.
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
`finished`.
CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
until it is.
### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice
**One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six
of ten did.
CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong
ones before checking them**:
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. |
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. |
Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on
reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this
exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what
the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game.
So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing.
**Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.**
They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came
off, not because anything demonstrates them.
### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
```
for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
```
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
their own.
**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
reported metric with a target of zero.

137
specs/GroundRules.md
View file

@ -221,82 +221,151 @@ terms.
## The finding register
Moved to [`FindingRegister.md`](FindingRegister.md) on 2026-08-05 — this
file crossed the loadability limit. The U-items below are its
`underdetermined` rows; `make design` reports over it.
**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
`make design`.
## Underdetermined in dataset 0.1 — RULED 2026-08-03, applied 2026-08-05
<!-- design-register:begin -->
**Owner: ground-game. Raised: 2026-07-31. Ruled 2026-08-03**
(GROUND-WP-0002 T05): **all ten confirmed** as the defaults clay-borg
already simulates. Applied here 2026-08-05 (CB-WP-0026).
| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U1 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U2 | underdetermined | ruled | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U3 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U4 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U5 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U6 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U7 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U8 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U9 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| U10 | underdetermined | ruled | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
| F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
| F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
**Nothing below awaits a ruling.** The defaults are now the rules for
dataset 0.1, and the `provisional: true` flags they carried have been
lifted — a flag that outlives its question is a lie with a timestamp.
<!-- design-register:end -->
**No kernel behaviour changed**, because every ruling was a confirmation.
What changed is that these stopped being our guesses.
- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
one exists.
- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
`-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
recording the artifact.
> **Three rulings carry more than "confirm", quoted rather than
> paraphrased.** **U1**: the Bond formed by *this* Support still does not
> cancel DARVO (printed designer note — this is what GR-L05 encodes).
> **U2**: clamp on every application, but **DARVO still arms only at End**
> when at Stress 5 (GR-R08) — the clamping rule and the trigger rule are
> separate. **U8**: GROUND—OU applies first and **Protection is consumed
> only if it actually cancels**.
>
> ground-game flagged **U2, U6 and U8** as the three that change play,
> because each decides whether a DARVO stage fires at all.
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
Formalization exposed points the dataset did not decide. Each is stated
with its default and the ruling that settled it.
**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
`finished`.
CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
until it is.
### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
```
for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
```
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
their own.
**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
reported metric with a target of zero.
## Underdetermined in dataset 0.1 — PROVISIONAL defaults (flag to ground-game)
**Owner: ground-game. Raised: 2026-07-31.** Every U-item carries an owner
and a raise date so its age is visible; `make coverage` reports both and
warns past 30 days. CI **warns rather than breaks** — the ruling belongs
to ground-game and the kernel cannot make it for them — but every evidence
file that depends on one must list it (CB-WP-0003 T08).
A ruling flips the *scenario*, not the kernel: the default is encoded in a
scenario tagged `provisional: true`, so a correction is a data change.
Formalization exposed points the dataset does not decide. Simulation uses
the stated default; each is tagged in scenarios that depend on it and must
be confirmed or corrected by ground-game.
- **U1 Bond acceptance timing (GR-L02):** when does the target "accept"?
Default: a decision point during the Support resolution, target decides
with full knowledge of revealed Actions.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Target accepts during Support resolution, with full knowledge of revealed Actions. A Bond formed by *this* Support still does not cancel DARVO (printed designer note; GR-L05).
- **U2 Stress clamping during resolution (GR-F01):** dataset caps Stress
at End; mats physically cap at 0–5. Default: clamp on every
application (no intermediate values above 5/below 0). Note this
interacts with DARVO triggering (a mid-round spike to 5 that is reduced
again before End does not trigger).
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Clamp Stress to 0–5 on **every** application; matches the physical mats. DARVO still arms **only at End** when at Stress 5 (GR-R08).
- **U3 DENY with no legal target (GR-D03):** if no face-up unsolved
unprotected Problem exists, default: the stage resolves as a no-op and
the sequence still advances.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No-op; the sequence still advances.
- **U4 Solution deck exhaustion (GR-A01):** default: reshuffle the discard
into a new deck deterministically; if both are empty, the draw is
skipped.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Deterministic reshuffle of the discard into a new deck; if both are empty, skip the draw.
- **U5 Rejected REVERSE — self-effects (GR-D05):** the Actions sheet says
GROUND—ND "rejects one Reverse"; the DARVO sheet orders the −2
self-Stress after the flip/+1/Protection block. Default: rejection
cancels the effects on the target (no Blame, no +1) **and** the
Protection gain, but the sequence owner still takes −2 Stress and the
sequence still ends; the Focus token returns unflipped.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Rejection cancels the target effects (no Blame, no +1, no Protection) **and** the owner still takes −2 Stress and the sequence ends.
- **U6 Simultaneous Bond-Support and stage cancellation (GR-A04, GR-R06):**
Support (step 2) resolves before DARVO stages (step 3), so a Bond
Support in the same round cancels that round's stage before it fires.
Stated as the intended reading; confirm.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** A pre-existing Bond Support (step 2) cancels that round's DARVO stage before it fires (step 3) and ends the sequence.
- **U7 Focus target elimination:** dataset has no player elimination, so
no rule needed; confirm none exists.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No player elimination.
- **U8 Multiple Attack cancellation sources (GR-A09):** if both Protection
and GROUND—OU could cancel the same Attack, default: GROUND—OU (chosen
at step 1) applies first; Protection is consumed only if it actually
cancels.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** GROUND—OU applies first; Protection is consumed **only if it actually cancels**.
- **U9 Two players at Stress 5 at the same End (GR-R08):** both trigger;
their stages resolve in Lead order in later rounds. No interaction rule
needed; confirm.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** Both trigger; later stages resolve in Lead order. No extra interaction rule.
- **U10 Hand limits:** none stated. Default: no hand limit.
**RULED 2026-08-03 — confirm.** No hand limit in r0. Revisit only if playtest shows bloat.
## Scenario coverage obligation
Every GR-rule above must be covered by ≥1 scenario under

18
tools/design-baseline.py
View file

@ -47,19 +47,11 @@ FINDINGS = {
"evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md",
"scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml",
"workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md"],
# FROZEN 2026-08-05. This globbed `provisional: true` live, so it was
# never a snapshot -- it drifted with the repo. CB-WP-0026 lifted the
# last five flags (ground-game ruled them 2026-08-03) and the glob went
# empty, turning this file's own pinned self-test red at 1/6. A dated
# snapshot that recomputes is a contradiction; the literal list it
# measured on 2026-08-03 is what belongs here.
"six provisional defaults": [
"scenarios/ground/gr-a04-bond-support.yaml",
"scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml",
"scenarios/ground/gr-d05-darvo-reverse.yaml",
"scenarios/ground/gr-e02-shared-ground.yaml",
"scenarios/ground/gr-e04-coalitions.yaml",
],
"six provisional defaults": sorted(
os.path.join("scenarios/ground", f)
for f in os.listdir("scenarios/ground")
if f.endswith(".yaml")
and "provisional: true" in open(os.path.join("scenarios/ground", f)).read()),
"GR-E03/GR-E04 never played": ["evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md"],
}

37
tools/design.py
View file

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
"""design — report the finding register (CB-WP-0022 T05).
Implements the metrics in `specs/GameDesign.md` §4 over the register in
`specs/FindingRegister.md`. ADR-0012 D8 retired `design-baseline.py`, which
`specs/GroundRules.md`. ADR-0012 D8 retired `design-baseline.py`, which
was a hand-maintained dict counting itself; the difference that matters is
that **every number here is computed over rows that name real files, and
the reproduction check stats the file.**
@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ directly: a row citing a nonexistent file must NOT count as reproduced.
import os, re, sys, subprocess, datetime
ROOT = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))
REGISTER = os.path.join(ROOT, "specs", "FindingRegister.md")
REGISTER = os.path.join(ROOT, "specs", "GroundRules.md")
BEGIN = "<!-- design-register:begin -->"
END = "<!-- design-register:end -->"
@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ def alarming(row, root=ROOT):
def report(root=ROOT, today=None):
today = today or datetime.date.today()
rows = parse(open(os.path.join(root, "specs", "FindingRegister.md")).read())
rows = parse(open(os.path.join(root, "specs", "GroundRules.md")).read())
findings = [r for r in rows if r["state"] != NOTE]
notes = [r for r in rows if r["state"] == NOTE]
@ -179,31 +179,12 @@ def self_test():
all(r["role"] in ("counterexample", "default")
for r in rows if r["repro"] not in ("—", "-", "")))
# CB-WP-0026 T03. A scenario may claim a U-item only if it names it,
# because two plausible mappings were written and both were wrong on
# reading what the scenario actually exercises (gr-a04 asserts consent
# is required, not U1's timing; gr-d05 is the unrejected REVERSE, not
# U5's rejected one). A claim nobody can check is how three wrong
# premises reached ground-game.
import glob
for path in glob.glob(os.path.join(ROOT, "scenarios", "ground", "*.yaml")):
body = open(path).read()
m = re.search(r"^encodes_u_item:\s*(\S+)", body, re.M)
if m:
check(f"{os.path.basename(path)} names the U-item it claims",
re.search(rf"\b{m.group(1)}\b", body) is not None, m.group(1))
# The measured claim: exactly one U-item has a scenario encoding it.
#
# **Asserted on the DECLARATION, not on a mention.** The first version
# grepped for `\bU<n>\b` and went red the moment two scenarios recorded
# *why they do not* encode U1 and U5 — a mention is not a claim, and a
# measurement that cannot tell them apart is the loose proxy that let
# "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand unchallenged.
claimed = sorted({re.search(r"^encodes_u_item:\s*(\S+)", open(p).read(), re.M).group(1)
for p in glob.glob(os.path.join(ROOT, "scenarios", "ground", "*.yaml"))
if re.search(r"^encodes_u_item:\s*\S+", open(p).read(), re.M)})
check("exactly one U-item is encoded by a scenario", claimed == ["U2"], f"{claimed}")
# The measured claim in the backfill: only U2 cites its U-item.
cited = [u for u in [f"U{i}" for i in range(1, 11)]
if subprocess.run(["grep", "-rlE", rf"\b{u}\b"] +
[os.path.join(ROOT, "scenarios", "ground")],
capture_output=True, text=True, cwd=ROOT).stdout.strip()]
check("exactly one U-item is cited by a scenario", cited == ["U2"], f"{cited}")
print("design self-test (positive control)")
return 0 if ok else 1

38
tools/rule-coverage.py
View file

@ -154,39 +154,11 @@ def self_test():
check("code-id matcher finds none in unmarked source",
parse_code_ids("fn f() { let x = 1; }") == set())
# T08: every provisional scenario must carry an owner and a date.
#
# **Tested against a fixture, not against the repo.** This control used
# to read `scenarios/ground/*.yaml` and require `bool(prov)` — a guard
# against a vacuous pass, which is the right instinct, but it made the
# control depend on the repo *having* provisional items. CB-WP-0026
# lifted the last five (ground-game ruled them all on 2026-08-03) and
# the control went red for the best possible reason: nothing is
# provisional any more.
#
# A positive control must construct the condition it tests. The live
# count is a diagnostic below, not a pass criterion — there is no
# number of provisional items this project *should* have.
import glob as _g, tempfile as _tf, os as _os
with _tf.TemporaryDirectory() as _d:
good = _os.path.join(_d, "good.yaml")
bad = _os.path.join(_d, "bad.yaml")
open(good, "w").write("scenario: x\nprovisional: true\n"
"provisional_owner: ground-game\n"
"provisional_raised: 2026-07-31\n")
open(bad, "w").write("scenario: y\nprovisional: true\n")
g = provisional_items([good])
b = provisional_items([bad])
check("a provisional item with an owner and a date passes",
len(g) == 1 and all(o and r for _, o, r in g))
check("a provisional item MISSING its owner/date is caught",
len(b) == 1 and not all(o and r for _, o, r in b),
"without this the check passes on anything it can parse")
live = provisional_items(sorted(_g.glob("scenarios/ground/*.yaml")))
check("every LIVE provisional item has an owner and a raised date",
all(o and r for _, o, r in live),
f"{len(live)} provisional item(s)"
+ (" — none; all ruled 2026-08-03 (CB-WP-0026)" if not live else ""))
import glob as _g
prov = provisional_items(sorted(_g.glob("scenarios/ground/*.yaml")))
check("every provisional item has an owner and a raised date",
bool(prov) and all(o and r for _, o, r in prov),
f"{len(prov)} provisional item(s)")
# --- CB-WP-0005 T01: the kernel denominator ---
# The control the old arm was fixed for, replicated. A pattern that

27
workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md
View file

@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
id: CB-WP-0021
kind: product
title: "Import the edition: the game plays its own data"
status: done
status: active
state_hub_workstream_id: "782b1c37-f3a7-469b-87a3-fa73ebe758d2"
---
@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ collections.
```task
id: CB-WP-0021-T04
status: done
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "ba76138d-a225-470d-bb2a-3a6881f4ca82"
```
@ -293,26 +293,3 @@ state_hub_task_id: "ba76138d-a225-470d-bb2a-3a6881f4ca82"
score against the threshold.
- **Quote CB-WP-0020's cost by re-running the instrument.**
- **Chaos: 4 of 12 in window 2.**
**Done 2026-08-05.**
[CB-EV-0019](../evidence/CB-EV-0019-import-the-edition.md).
- **The budget was the wrong one, and the ADR corrected it**: `csv` costs
17,651 against AM-4b's 19,742, so it *fits* — and is refused on
proportion (89% of the remainder to read 20 rows). Third premise this
pass corrected, second against a mis-chosen denominator.
- **The hash blast radius was predicted, then measured to be ~0** — ADR-0011
§D3 found **0 scenario files pin a state hash**. Verified today:
`replay-test` 14/14, AM-7 0.985/0.998/1.018 against a 0.9 floor. What
actually broke was six scenarios' *data*, not any logic.
- **The endings mean something, and they are tight.** Played 2p all-bots:
**total 4 / threshold 5, group failure**, 6 available. T02's control
predicted a full clear is required at 2p — confirmed by play.
- **The cost chain snapped.** `cb-cost.py --slug CB-WP-0020` **aborts** —
no transcripts retained — so T04's last bullet cannot be satisfied, and
the instrument refusing to estimate is the correct behaviour. 41.6% of
spend is UNATTRIBUTED. The quote-the-previous-pass rule needs a bound.
- **The sharpest thing in it**: the work that disproved GR-E01 is *in this
workplan*, and CB-WP-0022 was written the next day quoting GR-E01 as its
founding example. Nothing connected them until a separate agent ran
`git log` four days later.

286
workplans/CB-WP-0026-collect-the-rulings.md
View file

@ -1,286 +0,0 @@
---
id: CB-WP-0026
kind: product
title: "Collect the rulings: ten answers that arrived and were never applied"
status: done
---
# Purpose
```
structural tier S (applies rulings inside an existing capability —
scenario data and a spec section, no new port, no
canonical interface, no dependency)
chaos d8 = 6 → no override
declared tier S
```
Declaration 9 of chaos window 2.
## The register's first run found this, which is the only reason it exists
`ground-game` **ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03** (GROUND-WP-0002 T05)
and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios (T03). Every U-item was
**confirmed** as the default clay-borg already simulates. The workplan is
`finished`.
**clay-borg never collected the answers.** CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10
ruled"* on 2026-08-03 — the same day — and CB-WP-0022 built the finding
register two days later still recording them as `reported`. It took
`make design`'s first run to notice.
**This is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction.**
The whole design-instrument pass was shaped around *we send findings and
nobody reads them*. The symmetric failure — *they answer and we do not
collect it* — was not anticipated by the declaration, the survey, or the
adversarial review.
**Nothing here is a rules decision.** Every ruling is already made. This is
clay-borg applying them, which is the `ruled` → `applied` transition
ADR-0012 D5 defines: *the source changed and the provisional default was
deleted.*
## Why the rulings being "confirm" makes this more subtle, not less
Every U-item was confirmed, so **no kernel behaviour changes**. It is
tempting to conclude nothing needs doing.
That is wrong, and the register is what makes it visible: the scenarios
still carry `provisional: true` for choices that are now **settled**. A
provisional flag means *we picked this and the owner has not ruled*. After
2026-08-03 that statement is false in five files, and `make coverage`
keeps ageing them toward a 30-day warning for a question that has been
answered.
**A flag that outlives its question is the same defect as a hash that
outlives its content** — ADR-0011's *"a lie with a timestamp."*
## Task: record the rulings where the defaults live
```task
id: CB-WP-0026-T01
status: done
priority: high
```
`specs/GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` states ten defaults as *"must be
confirmed or corrected by ground-game."* All ten now are. Each U-item
gains its ruling and the date, from GROUND-WP-0002 T05.
**Quote the ruling, do not paraphrase it.** Three carry notes that are
more than "confirm" and a paraphrase would lose them:
- **U1** — the Bond formed by *this* Support still does not cancel DARVO
(a printed designer note, and it is the interaction GR-L05 encodes);
- **U2** — clamp on every application, but **DARVO still arms only at End**
when at Stress 5 (GR-R08). The clamping rule and the trigger rule are
separate, and conflating them is the obvious misreading;
- **U8** — GROUND—OU applies first and **Protection is consumed only if it
actually cancels**.
**Controls:**
- the §Underdetermined preamble no longer says the items await a ruling —
it is the sentence that will otherwise be true-looking and wrong;
- **U2, U6 and U8 are the ones ground-game flagged as changing play.**
Each must be checkable against the kernel behaviour it describes, or the
record says a rule is implemented that may not be.
**Done 2026-08-05.** All ten rulings quoted into `§Underdetermined`, with
the three conditional ones (U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger,
U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels) verbatim. The section heading and
preamble no longer say the items await a ruling.
## Task: lift the provisional flags the rulings settle
```task
id: CB-WP-0026-T02
status: done
priority: high
```
Five scenarios carry `provisional: true` with `provisional_owner:
ground-game`: `gr-a04-bond-support`, `gr-d01-darvo-trigger`,
`gr-d05-darvo-reverse`, `gr-e02-shared-ground`, `gr-e04-coalitions`. All
five were **confirmed** on 2026-08-03. The flag comes off, and each
records which ruling settled it.
**Do not delete the provenance with the flag.** CB-WP-0021 T03 is the
precedent: `gr-e01` was *rewritten, not retired*, because a reader needs
to learn the question was answered rather than that a tag vanished.
**Controls:**
- `make coverage` reports **0 provisional items** afterwards, and that is
the measurable outcome of this task;
- `make sim` still passes — a confirmed default is the behaviour already
implemented, so a red scenario here means the default was **not** what
we told ground-game it was, which is a finding and must be raised, not
patched;
- the ruling date survives in each file.
**Done 2026-08-05.** All five flags lifted; `make coverage` reports **0
provisional items**. Each file gained `ruled` / `ruled_by` / `ruled_note`
instead — the flag came off, the provenance did not.
**The schema refused the new fields and was right to.** `ScenarioFile` is
`deny_unknown_fields`, so five scenarios failed to parse until `ruled`,
`ruled_by`, `ruled_note` and `encodes_u_item` were declared. A scenario
corpus that silently accepted unknown metadata would let a typo'd
`encodes_u_iem` sit there claiming nothing.
**T02's control held: `make sim` is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, with no
scenario red.** That is the answer to the serious version of this task —
had one gone red, it would have meant we described our own behaviour
incorrectly to ground-game, which would be a defect in *our* report rather
than in their ruling.
## Task: make the U-item ↔ scenario mapping checkable
```task
id: CB-WP-0026-T03
status: done
priority: high
```
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured in CB-WP-0022 T05:
```
for u in U1..U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
```
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
scenarios."* Four probably do — but **the link is not written down, so it
is not checkable**, and an uncheckable link asserted as a fact is the
defect class that produced three wrong premises.
Each scenario that encodes a U-item default names it. Where no scenario
covers a U-item, **say so** rather than inventing a mapping — that is the
honest half, and guessing here would reproduce exactly the error being
fixed.
**Controls:**
- a check that every U-item claiming a reproduction resolves to a file
that **names it** — `design.py`'s self-test already asserts the current
state (`cited == ["U2"]`) and must be updated to the new truth, not
deleted;
- the register's reproduction column matches the mapping, since a register
that disagrees with the files is worse than none.
**Done 2026-08-05, and it caught me writing the same defect a third and
fourth time.**
I wrote two mappings from the `covers:` lists — `gr-a04` → U1, `gr-d05` →
U5 — and both are wrong on reading what the scenarios actually exercise:
| claimed | why withdrawn |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts |
| `gr-d05` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND) |
Both were plausible from `covers:` and neither survived reading the
description. **The measurement stands: one U-item, U2.** Nine have no
reproduction and are recorded as having none.
`encodes_u_item` is now a declaration, and `design.py` asserts a scenario
naming a U-item actually contains it. **The check's first version was
itself the loose proxy**: it grepped for `\bU<n>\b` and went red when two
files recorded *why they do not* encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a
claim — and that is exactly the looseness that let *"six of the ten have
provisional scenarios"* stand unchallenged.
## Task: close the register, and see whether it closes
```task
id: CB-WP-0026-T04
status: done
priority: high
```
Move U1–U10 from `ruled` to `applied` and re-run `make design`.
**The number to beat is `open, lacking a reproduction: 9 → 0`**, and the
queue emptying is the first evidence that ADR-0012 D5's lifecycle is real
rather than drawn.
**If it does not reach 0, do not adjust the metric.** Whatever remains is
either a U-item with no scenario (T03's honest half, which should then be
a `note`, not a finding) or a state the lifecycle cannot express — and the
second is a finding about ADR-0012 that belongs in evidence.
**Controls:**
- `make design` shows an empty queue for the U-items, with the log
carrying all ten;
- `make self-tests` and `make sim` pass;
- **the closure is checkable from the register alone** — a reader should
not need this workplan to see that ten findings closed on 2026-08-03 and
were applied on 2026-08-05.
**Done 2026-08-05. The queue is empty.**
```
QUEUE (open findings) (none)
open, lacking a reproduction 0 target 0
closed (log) 12 [U1..U10, F11, F13]
with a resolving reproduction 3/12 = 25%
```
**`open, lacking a reproduction: 9 → 0`** — the number this task named.
It is the first evidence that ADR-0012 D5's lifecycle is real rather than
drawn: findings entered a state, moved through it, and left the queue.
**25% reproduced is not a failure and must not be read as one.** Nine
U-items closed by a *ruling*, and a ruling is not an artifact. The metric
is now honest about a thing the survey's 33% concealed: most of our
findings closed because someone answered them, not because anything
demonstrated them.
## Task: evidence
```task
id: CB-WP-0026-T05
status: done
priority: medium
```
`evidence/CB-EV-0022-*.md`. Short — this is an S pass.
- **How long the answers sat uncollected**, and what noticed them. Two
days, and the thing that noticed was the register's first run, not a
human and not the review.
- **Whether any confirmed default turned out not to match the kernel** —
T02's control. A red scenario here would mean we described our own
behaviour incorrectly to ground-game, which would be a fourth premise
defect and the most serious kind, since it was *our* behaviour.
- **What the mapping gap really was**: whether the four unlinked scenarios
encode U-item defaults at all, or whether CB-RES-0007's "six of ten" was
simply wrong.
- **Whether the queue reached 0**, and if not, what the lifecycle could not
express.
- **Quote CB-WP-0022's cost by re-running the instrument** — and note that
CB-EV-0019 §4 found this chain snaps at roughly four passes, so if the
instrument aborts, that is the second instance and the rule needs its
bound.
**Done 2026-08-05.**
[CB-EV-0022](../evidence/CB-EV-0022-collect-the-rulings.md).
- **Two days uncollected, and the register's first run is what noticed** —
not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things.
- **No confirmed default failed to match the kernel**: `make sim` 26
passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. The serious version of this task
came back clean.
- **The mapping gap was not under-documentation, it was error.** At least
two of the four unlinked scenarios do **not** encode the U-items the
survey implied, and I wrote both wrong mappings before checking them.
- **The queue reached 0.** `applied` conflates *confirmed* with
*overturned*, which is the lifecycle gap this pass found and did not fix.
- **The cost chain held this time** — CB-WP-0022 is one pass back and
still in the window. The bound CB-EV-0019 asked for is still owed.
**A gate went red for the best possible reason.** `rule-coverage.py`'s
positive control required `bool(prov)` — at least one provisional item to
exist. Lifting the last five turned it red. The guard was the right
instinct (a vacuous pass is worthless) wired the wrong way: it bound a
control to live repo data. It now builds its own fixture, asserts the
missing-owner case is *caught*, and reports the live count as a diagnostic
— because there is no number of provisional items this project should
have.