tegwick
041c0e7c3e
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a retraction. The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true. Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero. The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2. Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy. Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all. edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call. Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though they can never act. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.8 KiB
CB-EV-0030 — H1 measured
CB-WP-0038. Tier L (structural L; chaos d8 = 8 → override, redraw = L — the override changed nothing). Declaration 10 of chaos window 3, and the window's first 8. Closed 2026-08-08.
This evidence has not had its tier-L adversarial review (InnerLoop Step 2). It may not go to
ground-gameuntil it has. It is a measurement of another repo's design hypothesis, which is precisely the case the review exists for.
Delivered: variant selection in the kernel, H1-A and H1-B implemented
from rules_delta.yaml, ground-game's unchanged: list asserted rather
than trusted, and the ATTACK panel re-run for both rule sets.
1. The result, against their own criteria
ground-game's success criteria (design note §3.2), answered one by one.
Three of four fail.
CORRECTED 2026-08-08 after adversarial review (
CB-REV-0001). Criteria 1 and 2 were rendered as flat failures on the strength of the greedy column alone, while this pass's own harness printed 31–1000 DARVO arms per cell in the rank-75 and rank-95 columns. That is the selective-column move this project says it exists to prevent, committed in the file that says so. The verdicts below are restated per column.
| # | criterion | verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial, "not 0/500" | not a flat fail. 0 under greedy; 81–1000 per cell under rank-75 and rank-95, baseline and H1. It fails for a seat that regulates and passes for one that does not — see CB-EV-0031 |
| 2 | ATTACK selection rises for some subpopulation | mixed. Greedy attacks 0 times; rank-75's ATTACK fell 604 → 180 at 2p; the unregulated seat's rose 0 → 726 |
| 3 | group success does not collapse | fails hardest — greedy's wins go 165 → 0 (3p), 190 → 0 (4p), 200 → 0 (6p) |
| 4 | Bond/GROUND stay better than DARVO | holds, but vacuously: DARVO never fires |
SHARED GROUND, greedy column, 200 games per cell:
| seats | baseline won | H1 won |
|---|---|---|
| 2p | 132 | 68 |
| 3p | 165 | 0 |
| 4p | 190 | 0 |
| 6p | 200 | 0 |
2. Why — and the mechanism is not the one H1 assumed
H1-A was meant to raise Stress toward the DARVO arm at 5. It does not get there under competent play. One 3-player game, seed 1:
| rounds | final Stress | Problems unclaimed | DARVO armed | outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| baseline | 5 | 0, 1, 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 of 7 — success |
| H1 | 5 | 3, 3, 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 of 7 — failure |
Greedy spends its actions on Stress instead of Problems. The pressure is answered by regulating, so Stress plateaus around 3 — below the gate at 4 and well below the arm at 5 — while two Problems go unclaimed and the total lands under the threshold.
So H1-A behaves as a solve-rate tax, not as DARVO pressure. And since Stress never reaches 4, H1-B never fires at all under competent play: the self-soothe is unreachable by the policy it was designed to tempt.
The seat-count pattern is the tell. At 2p — three Problems, so a table can clear the board — H1 helps in SHARED (132 → 68 is a fall, but 2p is the only band that still wins at all). At 3p and above the board is bigger than the pressure allows a table to clear, and success goes to zero. The tax scales with the number of Problems; the intended effect does not.
3. The harness defect caught before the claim
The first run showed won, atk and darvo all exactly 0 at 3+
seats. That is the signature of games being discarded, not lost.
sweep had let Ok(g) = play(st, &mut ps) else { continue }; and never
reported its game count, so a run in which nothing played and a run in
which nothing won were the same output.
Reporting "H1 makes the game unwinnable" when the truth might have been "our harness threw every H1 game away" would have been the ADR-0018 family — aimed, this time, at another repository's design decision.
Instrumented: setup failures counted, play errors captured and printed,
games != 200 reported. All 200 ran in every cell. The zeros are
real, and now they are known to be real.
4. What this evidence does not say
- It does not say H1 is a bad idea. It says these two deltas, at these magnitudes, measured by this panel, do not do what §3.2 asks. Their §6 already has the branch for it: "H1 measured | DARVO still ~0 | add Idea 2 last-place stress (semi only) as H2".
- The panel is greedy-family throughout — greedy, and greedy with ATTACK reranked to 75 and 95. Plural, per RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1, but not diverse. A policy that manages Stress badly would reach 5 and arm DARVO, and none of these do. That is the obvious next measurement and it has not been run.
- No felt-play. GROUND-WP-0003 T01–T05 runs human tables separately, and 200-game aggregates cannot say what a table feels like.
5. A tuning direction, offered as a question and not a finding
If the aim is Stress reaching 5 sometimes, the tax must outrun regulation. Candidates, none measured: pressure scaling with the number of unclaimed Problems rather than a flat +1; applying it only above a Round threshold; or lowering the DARVO arm below 5. Each is a rules change and therefore ground-game's to make, not ours to propose as a fix.
6. Cost
make cost, not inlined. One vendored catalog and one experiment package;
no new dependency.
Open after this pass
- The tier-L adversarial review, before any of this travels.
- A policy that regulates badly, which is the measurement §4 names.
- H1-B has never been observed firing in a real game — only in a unit test. A delta that competent play cannot reach is untested where it matters.