# 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`. | 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| 2026-08-02 | clay-borg | | F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg | | F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg | | F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg | |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 | - **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case. - **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists. - **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9 against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12 against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` → `-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3 is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted, and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5). - **F16 — "the game is too easy at 5–6 seats", withdrawn the day it was raised.** Claimed from `GreedyPolicy` winning 200/200 at those seat counts. A `FirstLegal` policy scores **0%** on the identical deals, and at two seats it *beats* greedy — two unsophisticated agents span the whole range, so the measurement was about the policy. Caught by the CB-WP-0025 adversarial review (C4) **before transmission**; it would have been the fifth wrong premise sent to ground-game and the worst, since GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly this number. The withdrawal was reported (ADR-0012 D5). Its reproduction is `difficulty.rs`, whose policy panel is plural *because of this finding*. - **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. - **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the recording the artifact. ### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected **U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is `finished`. CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying `reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the unread inbox, in the opposite direction. **They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.** Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open until it is. ### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice **One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six of ten did. CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong ones before checking them**: | claimed | why it was withdrawn | |---|---| | `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. | | `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. | Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game. So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing. **Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.** They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came off, not because anything demonstrates them. ### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted **Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated: ``` for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done ``` CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`. **No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of their own. **U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign §3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a reported metric with a target of zero.