# CB-EV-0001 — GROUND game kernel: acceptance evidence

Status: **T08 complete, with one acceptance metric not met (AM-4).**
Recorded: 2026-07-31
Workplan: CB-WP-0001, task T08
Spec: `specs/GameKernel.md` §4 (AM-1..AM-12)
Baseline: `research/CB-RES-0001-game-kernel.md`, measurements in
`research/CB-RES-0001-harness/boardgame-io/results-260731.json`

Machine: WSL2, Linux 6.18.33.2-microsoft-standard-WSL2, rustc 1.97.1,
`--release`, Criterion 1s warm-up / 3s measurement.

## 1. Scoreboard

| Metric | Target | Measured | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| AM-1 rule coverage | 100% of GR-rules | 58/58 (100%) | **met** |
| AM-4 dependency weight | ≤20 crates | 33 | **NOT MET** |
| AM-6 throughput | ≥100,000 events/s | 1,651,400 events/s | **met, 16.5×** |
| AM-7 scaling | ≥0.9× at 20× workload | 1.08× | **met** |
| AM-7 replay | 100k events ≤5s | 4.13 ms | **met, 1,210×** |
| AM-8 determinism | zero divergence, 10 replays | 1 distinct hash / 10 runs | **met** |
| AM-8 lint | fmt + clippy clean | clean, `-D warnings` | **met** |
| AM-10 foreign types | zero `HashMap`/`HashSet` | 0 | **met** |
| AM-11 impl pairs | null + reference per port | 1 of 1 (`KernelRng`) | **met, narrow** |
| AM-12 cost log | present | §5 | **met** |

AM-2, AM-3, AM-5 and AM-9 are not reported: see §6.

## 2. Throughput and scaling (AM-6, AM-7)

Workload: 3-player GROUND rounds, 7 commands and 13 events per round
(12 on a game's fifth round, where GR-R09 ends the game). Pinned by
`bench_shape` in `games/ground/src/lib.rs`, so a change to the workload
breaks the test rather than silently rescaling the metric.

| Rounds | Throughput (events/s) | vs 5k |
|---|---|---|
| 5,000 | 1,524,200 | 1.00× |
| 10,000 | 1,638,200 | 1.07× |
| 20,000 | 1,577,000 | 1.03× |
| 40,000 | 1,626,000 | 1.07× |
| 100,000 | 1,651,400 | 1.08× |

Replay — folding one growing event log back into state:

| Events | Time | Rate |
|---|---|---|
| 10,010 | 465 µs | 21.5M events/s |
| 100,007 | 4.13 ms | 24.2M events/s |

### The comparison against boardgame.io, stated carefully

boardgame.io measured **1,930 moves/s at 5,000 moves**, falling to
**870 moves/s at 20,000**, and **did not finish 100,000 moves in 300 s**.
Our figure in the same unit is ~129,000 rounds/s × 7 = **~903,000
commands/s**, and 100,000 rounds complete in 776 ms.

That is roughly a 400–500× ratio, and it is **not a like-for-like
measurement**. Four differences matter, all favouring us:

1. **Different language and process model.** Rust in-process against
   Node.js with immutable state, patch generation and undo history.
2. **Different feature set.** boardgame.io's per-move cost includes
   producing client patches and maintaining undo state; the run with
   `--disable-undo` still degraded (0.66× at 40k). We do neither.
3. **Different workload shape.** Our 5-round games (GR-R09) bound state
   size by construction. The boardgame.io harness ran one match with
   unbounded history, which is exactly the axis it degraded on.
4. **No network or storage layer** on our side.

Point 3 is the important one and it is why the flat curve in the table
above is *weak evidence on its own* — a game that resets every five
rounds cannot exhibit history-growth degradation. The replay benchmark
is the honest test of that axis, because there the log grows without
bound, and it stays linear (21.5M → 24.2M events/s from 10k to 100k).

**Claim we are willing to defend:** the kernel meets AM-6 and AM-7 with
large margin, and does not degrade as event-log length grows.
**Claim we are not making:** that Clay-Borg is ~450× "faster than
boardgame.io" as a like-for-like engine comparison. Per the
InnerLoop parity-cap rule, a cross-runtime ratio this coarse is not a
verdict, it is a direction.

### A measurement error found and corrected

The first run of this benchmark reported **9.3M events/s with a
perfectly flat curve** — a number that would have been reported as a
93× beat of AM-6. It was wrong. The workload had P2 selecting SUPPORT
every round while being attacked; after three rounds P2 sat at Stress 4,
GR-R03 rejected the SUPPORT, the round never completed, and the loop
spun on rejected commands. Throughput was computed as
`rounds × 13 events` while most rounds produced 2.

Found by a probe test asserting that a round produces events at all.
The benchmark now asserts the per-round event count on every round and
panics rather than measuring a stalled loop. The corrected figure is
**5.6× lower** than the bogus one.

## 3. Determinism (AM-8)

- Every scenario runs twice per invocation with the same seed and fails
  on state-hash divergence (K8). 21/21 pass.
- Ten consecutive full runs of all 21 scenarios produced **one distinct
  output hash**, i.e. zero divergence.
- `cargo fmt --check` and `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets
  -D warnings` are clean.
- `clippy.toml` denies `HashMap`/`HashSet` workspace-wide (K6); the
  aggregate holds only ordered collections, so iteration order cannot
  vary between runs.

## 4. AM-4 — not met, and why it is reported rather than fixed

**33 transitive crates against a ≤20 target.** The baseline it was set
against is boardgame.io's 120 npm packages, so we are 3.6× lighter, but
the metric as written is missed and is recorded as missed.

Attribution:

| Group | Crates | Count |
|---|---|---|
| `sha2` (K7 state hashing) | sha2, digest, block-buffer, crypto-common, generic-array, typenum, cpufeatures, cfg-if | 8 |
| serde derive chain | serde_derive, proc-macro2, quote, syn, unicode-ident | 5 |
| serde runtime + json | serde, serde_core, serde_json, itoa, ryu, memchr, zmij | 7 |
| `serde_yaml` (scenario files only) | serde_yaml, unsafe-libyaml, indexmap, hashbrown, equivalent | 5 |
| `rand_chacha` (K5 seeded RNG) | rand_chacha, rand_core, ppv-lite86, zerocopy | 4 |
| Clay-Borg crates | cb-kernel, cb-events, cb-game-runtime, games-ground | 4 |

The honest options, in order of preference:

1. **Make `serde_yaml` optional** behind a `scenarios` feature. YAML is
   a test-and-tooling concern; a shipped game runtime does not need it.
   Removes 5 crates from the default build for no loss of capability.
   This is the one to do first, and it improves D4 optionality as well
   as D2.
2. **Revisit the target.** ≤20 was set before the K5/K7 contracts named
   ChaCha and SHA-256. Those two contracts cost 12 crates between them
   and are load-bearing for determinism. A target that a spec's own
   contracts make unreachable is a bad target.

What we are **not** doing: hand-rolling SHA-256 or ChaCha to win a
dependency count. That trades an auditable, well-tested primitive for a
number on a scoreboard.

This is a T09 input: either the metric moves for a stated reason, or
option 1 lands and the remainder is justified.

## 5. Cost log (AM-12)

Per `specs/MetricsAndScenarios.md` §1a. Model: Claude Fable 5, at
`benchmarks/baselines/model-prices.toml` rates ($10/$50 per MTok).

| Task | Model | Iterations | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| T08 | claude-fable-5 | 6 code iterations + benchmarks | Token counts not captured per iteration; see limitation below |

**Limitation, stated rather than fabricated:** exact per-task token
counts were not instrumented during T08, so the USD figure the metric
asks for cannot be computed honestly from this run. Recording an
estimate here would defeat the purpose of the metric. T09 should either
wire real token accounting into the loop or drop M-D2-CST as
unmeasurable in this setup.

## 6. Metrics not reported

- **AM-2, AM-3, AM-5** — specification-quality metrics that need a
  second capability to compare against; a single data point is not a
  measurement.
- **AM-9 (≤64MB)** — not instrumented. The aggregate is a few KB and
  the largest log measured here is 100k events, so the budget is very
  unlikely to bind, but "unlikely" is not "measured" and it is left
  unclaimed.
- **AM-11** — the `KernelRng` null/reference pair exists and is
  exercised. It is the only port with a pair so far, so the metric is
  met narrowly and will mean more once storage has one.

## 7. Rules implemented under a provisional default

Ten U-items in `specs/GroundRules.md` carry PROVISIONAL defaults. Those
realized here are U2 (clamp on every application), U3 (DENY with no
legal target is a no-op that still advances), U4 (deck reshuffle), U5
(REVERSE owner relief applies whether or not the Reverse was rejected)
and U8 (GROUND—OU cancellation precedes Protection).

One further ambiguity was found during T08 and is **not** in the U-list:
**GR-E02's "successes"** is undefined in dataset 0.1. It is implemented
as the count of claimed Problems. Both scoring scenarios are marked
`provisional: true`.

All provisional behaviour lives behind named functions and is covered by
scenarios tagged `provisional: true`, so a ground-game ruling flips a
scenario rather than the kernel (K16). **Action for ground-game:** rule
on the ten U-items and on GR-E02's "successes".