# CB-EV-0032 — H2 measured CB-WP-0042 T05. Tier M. Closed 2026-08-08. **The first pass declared after the chaos roll was retired** (ADR-0021), so there is no roll to record. **Delivered:** H2 implemented from `rules_delta.yaml`, measured against **ground-game's own §3 criteria** — read from their design note, not reused from H1 — and a control that isolates the mechanism. --- ## 1. Their criteria, answered | # | criterion | verdict | |---|---|---| | 1 | greedy SHARED 3–4p **well above H1's 0** | **met, strongly** | | 2 | Stress variance above baseline *and* H1-greedy | **met at 2p/4p/6p, marginally missed at 3p** | | 3 | DARVO non-zero for a policy that **still sometimes wins** | **met** — and this was H1's clearest failure | | 4 | bond cards show elevated SOLVE rate vs personal | **not met, and this panel cannot test it** (§3) | | 5 | control: force all scopes global → H1-like collapse | **met, decisively** | ## 2. The numbers SHARED GROUND, 200 games per cell. `spread` is the mean max−min final Stress across seats — their criterion 2. **greedy** | seats | baseline won / spread | H1 won / spread | H2 won / spread | |---|---|---|---| | 2p | 132 / 0.05 | 68 / 0.34 | **87 / 0.47** | | 3p | 165 / 1.57 | **0** / 0.00 | **120** / 1.50 | | 4p | 190 / 1.83 | **0** / 0.00 | **175** / 2.40 | | 6p | 200 / 1.55 | **0** / 0.00 | **199** / 2.02 | **reactive** — DARVO arms in brackets | seats | H1 won (arms) | H2 won (arms) | |---|---|---| | 2p | 66 (363) | 61 (346) | | 3p | **0** (600) | **13** (499) | | 4p | **0** (800) | **13** (470) | | 6p | **0** (1200) | **57** (565) | **Criterion 1 is met with room.** H2 restores 73% of baseline wins at 3p and 92% at 4p, where H1 destroyed them entirely. **Criterion 3 is the one that matters most.** 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, honestly.** H2's spread beats baseline at 2p, 4p and 6p and **misses at 3p — 1.50 against 1.57**. It beats H1-greedy everywhere, and **H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+**: a flat tax on every seat creates no variance at all, which is the clearest statement of why scoping was the right correction. ## 3. Criterion 4 — the number is lower, and the number cannot mean what the criterion asks Claim rate by scope, H2, greedy: | seats | global | personal | bond | |---|---|---|---| | 2p | 70.5% | 54.5% | — (no bond card, as designed) | | 3p | 85.5% | 80.2% | **60.0%** | | 4p | 99.0% | 98.5% | **87.5%** | | 6p | 100% | 95.3% | 99.5% | **Bond is lower than personal at 3p and 4p — the opposite direction.** **And this panel cannot test the hypothesis.** The claim is that a shared tick makes a Bond network *jointly motivated* to clear that card. **No policy here models another seat, or knows what a scope is.** Greedy picks SOLVE on suit availability. So the bond rate is driven by which cards happen to be matchable, not by incentive — the mechanism the criterion is about could not have shown up. **This was stated in the workplan before the run**, not discovered in the numbers. The honest report is: **criterion 4 is untested, and the incidental figure points the wrong way.** A table can answer it; this cannot. ## 4. Criterion 5 — the control isolates the mechanism Force every scope to `global` and change nothing else: | seats | H2 scoped | H2, all scopes global | |---|---:|---:| | 3p | **120** | **0** | | 4p | **175** | **0** | **H1's collapse returns exactly.** That is a strong causal statement and the best evidence in this file: **the scoping is what saves it**, not any other difference between the packages. Their optional A/B was worth running. ## 5. ATTACK — affordable under H2, still not profitable Added after the first report, because the H2 panel measured wins, variance and DARVO and **not ATTACK selection**, which is F17's actual question. `attack-value`'s rank-75 policy — *attack when convenient* — SHARED GROUND, wins with attacks and DARVO arms in brackets: | seats | baseline | H1 | H2 | |---|---|---|---| | 2p | 132 (604 atk, 81 arms) | 66 (180, 59) | **65 (248, 102)** | | 3p | 165 (592, 125) | **0** (0, 0) | **112 (250, 52)** | | 4p | 190 (923, 218) | **0** (0, 0) | **173 (626, 165)** | | 6p | 200 (389, 31) | **0** (0, 0) | **199 (299, 45)** | **The shape is the finding.** Under H1 a seat that sometimes attacks loses everything at 3p and above. Under H2 it wins **112 / 173 / 199** — against greedy's 120 / 175 / 199 — *while* attacking and arming DARVO. > **H2 makes occasional ATTACK affordable. It does not make it pay.** rank-75 never beats greedy in any cell; at best it draws level (199 vs 199 at 6p). And **rank-95 — always attack — still wins 0 everywhere**, in all three variants, so the *"not always-attack-optimal"* property holds. **F17 therefore stands.** ATTACK earns its place in no mode; what changed is that choosing it is no longer catastrophic. Whether "affordable" is what the design wants, or whether ATTACK should actually reward, is ground-game's judgement. ## 6. A construction hazard, found while measuring this `GroundState::with_variant()` exists because H2 assigns Problem owners at setup and `state.variant = v` leaves them unassigned — **scoped pressure then ticks nobody and H2 measures as inert**. **Three call sites had the bare write**, including `cb-play`'s driver. **No published figure is affected**, and that was checked rather than assumed: `h2-panel.rs` used the builder, and the two harnesses with the bare write had only ever run baseline and H1, neither of which has a setup step. The driver has never played H2. All three are fixed, and `a_bare_variant_write_leaves_h2_inert` now states the difference — so a regression is caught by a named test rather than by a reader wondering why H2 did nothing. **The builder was not enough**: the field is public, so the old form still compiles. That is worth knowing before the next variant. ## 7. What this does not say - **No felt-play.** H2's central claim is about *motivation* — a bonded pair caring about each other's card — and §3 says as much. 200-game aggregates measure dynamics, not motivation ([`Taxonomy.md`](../specs/Taxonomy.md) §4). - **The panel is still greedy-family**, as CB-EV-0031 said of itself. Criterion 3 asks for "some policy that still sometimes wins" and we have two, both derived from the same ranking. - **These are single-sample figures.** CB-REV-0003 #10 found the 2p arm counts varying 354–366 across seed windows; nothing here has been re-derived on a second sample, and the `won` columns should be read as approximate. - **No re-review.** CB-WP-0038's tier-L review found twelve fatal defects across three rounds, all in the instrument. This pass reuses that instrument. ## Open after this pass - **Criterion 4 needs a policy that models other seats**, or a table. - **A second seed window**, to separate the invariant figures from the sample-specific ones as CB-EV-0031 §1 now does. - **The 3p variance miss** (1.50 vs 1.57) is within what a second sample might move; it is reported as a miss because that is what this sample says.