# 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.