tegwick
02402c36b2
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Nine observations from the maintainer's session. Two are about the game and go to the register; seven are about the engine and are this workplan. F18 IS THE ONE THAT REFRAMES THE PASS. "I don't understand the GROUND card" reads as a design problem. It is not: Actions.csv carries that card's own tagline -- "Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide." -- and its full rules text, and clay-borg never imported it. We vendored ONE OF NINETEEN edition files. Everything else the engine knows is a hand-transcription into GroundRules.md's 59 numbered rules, which is enough to PLAY the game and gives a player nothing to READ. The page shows `Clarify` where the card says "Ask What Happened -- Invite a concrete account before judging." Registered as `inert`: the data exists and cannot fire, because nothing reads it. Found by a player saying he did not understand something. Rule coverage is 59/59 and has been for weeks. F17: no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions. Registered as a NOTE, not a finding -- no artifact demonstrates it, and under GameDesign §3.1 it may not go to ground-game until one exists. One is cheap (count ATTACK selections across the policy panel against hand quality). Owner is ground-game if it survives, since it would be a design finding. The workplan (M, chaos d8=1, no override, declaration 11 of window 2) carries the seven engine observations. Two tasks are deliberately shaped against past mistakes: T01 must decide whether ADR-0011's hand-rolled CSV reader survives Solutions.csv, whose microcopy and rules_text are prose with commas and quotes -- ADR-0011 named exactly that as its revisit condition, so if the reader cannot parse them the dependency argument gets re-run rather than a fragile parser written. T04 must first establish whether "click the deck to draw" is a legal move at all. GR-A01 draws as part of INVESTIGATE; the deck is not a thing a player may take from. If it is not legal, that is a FINDING for ground-game -- the maintainer expected an interaction the rules do not offer -- and not a feature. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered where it could not act. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md | ||
| CB-WP-0002-cost-accounting.md | ||
| CB-WP-0003-loop-hardening.md | ||
| CB-WP-0004-mechanical-work.md | ||
| CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md | ||
| CB-WP-0006-instrument-the-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0007-session-shape.md | ||
| CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md | ||
| CB-WP-0009-adaptive-gates.md | ||
| CB-WP-0010-consolidation.md | ||
| CB-WP-0011-inspectable-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0012-render-port.md | ||
| CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md | ||
| CB-WP-0014-execute-the-javascript.md | ||
| CB-WP-0015-the-inert-clauses.md | ||
| CB-WP-0016-the-drop-target.md | ||
| CB-WP-0017-legible-interaction.md | ||
| CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md | ||
| CB-WP-0019-the-am4-family.md | ||
| CB-WP-0020-the-table-you-can-read.md | ||
| CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md | ||
| CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md | ||
| CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md | ||
| CB-WP-0024-the-table-you-can-watch.md | ||
| CB-WP-0025-could-we-have-won.md | ||
| CB-WP-0026-collect-the-rulings.md | ||
| CB-WP-0027-the-commentary-track.md | ||
| CB-WP-0028-the-table-you-sit-at.md | ||