# 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| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |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 | applied | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
| F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
| F17 | degenerate | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
| F18 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_reads_only_part_of_what_it_vendored` | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
| F25 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_agrees_with_the_editions_own_numbers` | default | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
| F24 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_hardcoded_deck_still_matches_the_edition` | default | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
| F19 | degenerate | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::overhead_table | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
| F20 | inert | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::ending_page | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
| F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
| F23 | inconsistent | applied | decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
| F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
| F26 | inert | ruled | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F27 | unplayed | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
| F29 | inconsistent | applied | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F30 | degenerate | ruled | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
| F28 | underdetermined | applied | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |

<!-- design-register:end -->

Prose for **closed** findings (withdrawn or applied) lives in
[`FindingRegister-closed.md`](FindingRegister-closed.md); the rows above
are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.


- **F30 — SCN_04 is materially harder at 2 players.** 52/100 group
  success against 67 and 73, with **every other parameter held by the
  edition itself**: same deal shape, same 6 available points, same
  threshold 5, same starting Stress. The lone difference is that SCN_04
  is the only 2p deal needing **two of one suit** (Repair, Clarify,
  Repair).

  **Causation is not established** and the finding does not claim it. The
  falsifier is a deck with a doubled suit that does not lose group
  success.

  **Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the gap closes — at 4p
  SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is *not* the hard board there. The
  effect is specific to the 2p deal, which is the band where the deck has
  fewest cards to route around a suit it cannot match.

  **RULED 2026-08-08:** acceptable variety for now; SCN_04 stands as a
  harder board and is monitored. If table feel proves too swingy the
  first lever is priority-2's suit (dropping the double Repair), **not**
  the global thresholds — which also confirms our reading that the suit
  multiset is the operative difference, without our having measured it.
- **F27 — the two competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative
  play.** `scenario-panel` finds group success *exactly* equal across
  SHARED GROUND, COMMON PROBLEM and BONDED COALITIONS in all 36 cells.
  Correct arithmetic: `GreedyPolicy` maximises the group outcome and
  never reads `state.mode`, so the same games are played and only the
  winner set is carved differently. **Whether a mode changes how GROUND
  is played is therefore untested**, and cannot be tested by any panel
  built from the current policies — it needs one that plays for personal
  score. `unplayed` rather than `inert`: the modes score correctly, they
  have simply never faced a seat that wanted to win alone.

  **Re-measured 2026-08-08 with `ObjectivePolicy`** (CB-WP-0049 T03),
  which plays its seat's own objective. The finding **splits in two**:

  - **Group success does not move.** 34 of 36 cells identical; SCN_03 at
    4p goes 99→100 in all three modes, which is the SOLVE-by-value
    refinement and not a mode effect. **Whether the table survives is the
    same game in all three modes.**
  - **Who wins does move.** Under BONDED COALITIONS at 4p, winning seats
    per game go 2.04 → 2.98 (SCN_01/02), 2.12 → 3.29 (SCN_03), 2.05 →
    3.01 (SCN_04): a seat whose score is its coalition's sum bonds more,
    and the coalitions get about half again as large. COMMON PROBLEM
    moves at 6p (1.10 → 1.17).

  So the modes **do** reach decisions — the original claim that they are
  "scoring lenses over cooperative play" was too strong, and is withdrawn
  in favour of the sharper one: **GROUND's scoring modes change who wins,
  not whether the group succeeds.**

  **Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the effect appears and
  disappears — 2p shows no divergence in any mode, 4p shows the largest,
  6p shows none under BONDED COALITIONS. A candidate explanation is that
  two relation slots per seat cap network growth, so at 6p the incentive
  exists and cannot be acted on; **that is untested** and is the next
  thing to vary.

  **Still open**, because the part that motivated it is untested: no
  policy models a *rival* playing their objective, so a competitive mode
  in which nobody anticipates an opponent remains a weak test of that
  mode (CB-WP-0049 "Not done here").

  **The seat-band explanation is answered, 2026-08-08.** ground-game:
  the two-relation-slot limit is an **intentional cap** on complexity and
  play time; a third slot stays an extension rather than core r0. So the
  6p flatness is designed, not a defect — and our sensitivity run is
  welcome but would be measuring an extension, not the shipped game.
- **F26 — a package that adds a FILE is invisible, where a package that
  adds a column is not.** `h2-scoped-problem-stress` ships
  `Rules_Text.csv` — twenty-two passages of player-facing rules, including
  the one passage that says what a `stress_scope` does. No reader in
  clay-borg mentioned the file, so `edition-check` could not call it stale
  (a file nothing reads is not out of date, it is unseen) and no gate
  could call it unread. The rule the table's whole layout encodes sat in
  the repo, reachable by no player, for the entire measured life of H2.

  **Inert rather than underdetermined**: nothing is ambiguous about the
  rule and the engine implements it correctly — the text simply could not
  fire. Third instance of F18's shape and the first where the unit is a
  file, which is why it is filed separately instead of folded in.

  Raised against `ground-game` because the actionable half is theirs: a
  package's manifest should name its own files, so that a consumer reading
  none of them is a detectable state. clay-borg now reads the one passage
  it needed (CB-WP-0046); the other twenty-one remain unread and that is
  the standing evidence.

  **RULED 2026-08-08:** accepted as a process ask. Catalog and modules
  will declare `consumed_files` / overlays so a consumer reading none of
  a package's files is a detectable state. Tracked on their side under
  GROUND-WP-0008.
- **F17 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
  from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
  positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**:
  `games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs`, 200 games per cell, one number
  varied — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy.

  | ATTACK ranked | wins (2/3/4/5/6p) | attacks | DARVO armed |
  |---|---|---:|---:|
  | 10 (below all) | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200 | 0 | 0 |
  | 75 (above SUPPORT) | **132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200** | 315–923 | 13–218 |
  | 95 (above SOLVE) | **0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 1400–5170 | 400–1000 |

  **The middle row is the finding: identical win counts at every seat
  count**, while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO. Attacking
  is not punished — it is **inert with respect to the goal**. Group success
  is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK only costs anything when it
  ranks above SOLVE and displaces it.

  **So the maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than the
  phrasing.** There is no incentive because there is no *path*: ATTACK's
  effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
  `group_success`.

  **Asked in all three modes 2026-08-07, and ATTACK earns its place in
  none of them:**

  | mode | never attack | attack sometimes |
  |---|---|---|
  | SHARED GROUND | 132/165/190/200 | **identical** — free but pointless |
  | COMMON PROBLEM | 59/52/48/44 | 59/52/48/**34** — a cost at six seats |
  | BONDED COALITIONS | 131/134/132/116 | **59/52/48/34** — roughly halved |

  **The coalitions row has a mechanism the data confirms.** GR-A07 flips a
  Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond *networks* — so
  attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking numbers in
  E04 are **identical** to E03's, which is exactly what that predicts:
  break every Bond and each seat becomes a coalition of one, so GR-E04
  degenerates into GR-E03.

  **Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
  is *about* not falling into; a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
  design. The question for `ground-game` is whether the namesake mechanic
  being unreachable in competent co-op play is intended.
- **F18 — the engine imports one of nineteen edition files, so the cards
  cannot say what they do.** Reported as *"I don't understand the GROUND
  card"* — which is not a design gap: `Actions.csv` carries that card's
  tagline (*"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide."*) and full rules text,
  and clay-borg never imported it. Every other card is the same: a player
  sees `Clarify` where the card reads *"Ask What Happened — Invite a
  concrete account before judging."* **`inert`**: the data exists and
  cannot fire, because nothing reads it. **Ours, and CB-WP-0028 fixes it.**
- **F25 — the engine hardcodes numbers the edition states.**
  `GroundState::threshold` is a `match` returning 5/7/9 while
  `Scenarios.csv` carries `threshold_2_players`, `threshold_3_4_players`
  and `threshold_5_6_players`; setup writes `stress: 2` against *"All
  players start at Stress 2."*; the engine plays five rounds against a
  printed 1–5 track. **All three agree, on all four scenarios**, and that
  is the finding rather than the reassurance: these are the most contested
  numbers in the project — the whole 4/6/9 versus 5/7/9 episode turned on
  them — and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather
  than by reading the file that owns them. **`inert`**, role `default`:
  green because they agree, red the moment either side moves. **Ours.**
  Same shape as F24.

- **F24 — the draw pile is a Rust literal.** `solution_deck()` builds six
  of each suit from an array and never opens `Solutions.csv`, whose `suit`
  and `quantity` columns say the same thing. **They agree today** — 24
  rows, six per suit — so nothing is wrong now, and that is the point:
  the engine is right by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading.
  **`inert`**: the data exists and cannot fire. Role `default`, not
  `counterexample` — the reproduction is green *because* the two agree,
  which is the state GameDesign §1.3 says to expect from a documented
  provisional choice, and it turns red the moment either side moves.
  **Ours.** CB-WP-0037 T02 deletes the literal.

- **F15 — the rules define one game, not a series.** `OutcomeView` gives
  `personal` (per seat), `group_success` (per table) and `winners`. Summing
  the first and counting the third answer different questions, and GROUND
  says nothing about how several games combine. CB-WP-0024 T04 shows
  **both, labelled**, rather than picking one and letting it become the
  score by default. `note`: no artifact demonstrates that this *harms*
  play — a unit test showing the two tallies point at different seats
  demonstrates only that they can differ, which is arithmetic, not a design
  defect. Under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists.