# 2026-08-01 — CB-WP-0008 delivery notes Kept out of the workplan file so it stays loadable (`loop-lint`). ## T01 — bots `games/ground/src/bot.rs`, 8 tests. `Policy` + `RandomPolicy` (seeded `ChaChaRng`) + `GreedyPolicy` (stated heuristic, deterministic), a `legal_commands` generator that filters candidates through `validate`, and a driver that reaches `GameEnded`. Measured, 3-player, seed 42, both policies to GR-R09's fifth round: | policy | commands | events | claimed | total vs threshold | |---|---|---|---|---| | random | 36 | 81 | 1 | 2 / 7 | | greedy | 30 | 51 | 2 | 3 / 7 | **The module is not gated on `scenarios`; its tests are.** A bot needs only the aggregate, but the setup presets live behind that feature. That is a real seam and it is left visible rather than papered over with a feature the bot does not need. ### What the second consumer found INTENT's second-use rule is why T01 was worth doing before the CLI. Three findings, none of them fixed here, because fixing a rule from inside a bot is exactly the invention-in-isolation the rule guards against. 1. **GR-A13 admits SOLVE against an already-claimed Problem.** The rule names "a face-up, non-Denied Problem"; `claimed_by` is not mentioned, so `check_targeting` accepts it and resolution then does nothing. The action is silently wasted. Greedy hit this immediately — it spent all fifteen selections re-solving Problem 1 and scored 1. The **policy** now avoids it; the **rule** is untouched and this is a U-item candidate for GroundRules. 2. **The 3-player standard fixture cannot succeed.** GR-S01 gives 3 Problems at 3–4 players, the preset values them by priority (1, 2, 3 — maximum 6), and GR-E01 sets the 3–4p threshold at **7**. `group_success` is therefore unreachable at 3 players regardless of play. No scenario noticed because no scenario plays to scoring with maximal claiming. The fixture is documented as placeholder ("Problem content is scenario data") — so this is evidence that the placeholder is not neutral, not that GR-E01 is wrong. 3. **K13's `Project` trait has zero implementors.** `grep` finds no `impl Project` anywhere in the tree. T02 is its first consumer, and the projection will be written against a trait that has never been exercised. ### Process The acceptance tests were mutation-checked by hand (no `mutation-check` row — that denominator is the GameKernel acceptance table, and adding a game-level row would move a metric by changing its question). **The first mutation was a no-op and SURVIVED**: it changed `apply(...)?` to `let _ = apply(...)`, which still issues the command. Removing the `Resolve` call outright turned three tests red for their stated reason. Third recorded instance of the weak-mutation class — the retrospective in `260801-instrument-the-table-retrospective.md` predicted mutation strength would stay a standing maintenance cost, and this is that cost arriving on the next pass. ## T02 — `cb-play` `tools/cb-play` (`make play`), 6 tests. A human seat is a `Policy` like any bot, so the CLI adds no second driver: `HumanPolicy` renders the projection, lists the legal commands, and reads an index or `pass`. - **K13's first implementor** is `games/ground/src/view.rs`. Hidden: other seats' face-down selections until Reveal, hands (count only), the undealt deck (count only), a face-down Problem's suit and value, and **the seed** — not secret content, but a seat holding it can compute the deck. - **A played session becomes an artifact.** `--record FILE` writes it as a scenario the runner executes; `--replay DIR` writes a `.cbreplay` bundle. `games/ground/src/record.rs` is the inverse of `parse_command`, and its warrant is a round-trip test over every command shape — an encoder checked against hand-written expectations only agrees with itself. ### Two vacuous tests, caught by counting The acceptance clause *"a seat's projection never contains another seat's hidden selection"* passed twice while asserting nothing. 1. The first version asserted the rendered text contained `face-down` — which it does, from **Problems**, in every game ever rendered. 2. The counted version then reported **0 inspected entries**: seats are asked in order, so a human at P1 is always prompted before anyone has selected and never sees a hidden selection at all. Seating the human at **P3** exercises the rule; the test now counts what it inspected and requires at least four. Mutating the projection (`revealed = true`) fails it for its stated reason. This is the same class as the AM-2 `expect` that matched passing output — an assertion that cannot distinguish the two worlds. The remedy that worked both times was **counting what the harness examined**, not strengthening the predicate.