tegwick
041c0e7c3e
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
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 Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker".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>
133 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
133 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# CB-EV-0031 — a seat that does not regulate
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0039. Tier M (adds a policy to the panel every future measurement is
|
||
reported against; chaos d8 = 2 → no override). **Declaration 11 of chaos
|
||
window 3.** Closed 2026-08-08.
|
||
|
||
> **CORRECTED 2026-08-08 after adversarial review, and most of the
|
||
> original file was wrong.** The review is in
|
||
> [`CB-REV-0001`](../reviews/CB-REV-0001-h1.md). The policy this pass
|
||
> called *"greedy with one preference changed"* differed in **five**
|
||
> places — including `SpendFreedom`, which it ranked 95 unconditionally
|
||
> where greedy ranks it 0 unless the gate bites, so the seat burned its
|
||
> Freedom token in round one of every game. **Every number below was
|
||
> measuring that bug.** They have been re-derived against a policy that
|
||
> delegates to `GreedyPolicy::rank` and overrides exactly one arm.
|
||
>
|
||
> Sections 1 and 2 are rewritten. **Section 3 is withdrawn entirely.**
|
||
|
||
**Delivered:** the `reactive` policy, and the measurement CB-EV-0030 §4
|
||
named as the one it had not run.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. It changes CB-EV-0030's verdict
|
||
|
||
CB-EV-0030 concluded H1's DARVO arm rate was still 0. **That was true of
|
||
the panel, and the panel was greedy-family throughout.**
|
||
|
||
`GreedyPolicy` ranks `Action::Ground if gated => 100`: the instant the
|
||
stress gate bites it grounds. Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is
|
||
unreachable **by construction**. So "H1 does nothing" was really "H1 does
|
||
nothing *to a seat that already manages its Stress*" — and H1 was written
|
||
for the seat that does not.
|
||
|
||
`reactive` now **delegates to `GreedyPolicy::rank` and overrides one arm**
|
||
(`Ground if gated`), so "one preference differs" is structurally true
|
||
rather than a claim. SHARED GROUND, 200 games per cell, all 200 ran, and
|
||
**`peak` is now Stress held, not Stress assigned** (§2):
|
||
|
||
| | | greedy | | | | reactive | | |
|
||
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||
| **seats** | won | atk | darvo | peak | won | atk | darvo | peak |
|
||
| 2p | 68 | 0 | 0 | 4 | **66** | 726 | 363 | **5** |
|
||
| 3p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1200 | 600 | **5** |
|
||
| 4p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1600 | 800 | **5** |
|
||
| 6p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2400 | 1200 | **5** |
|
||
|
||
**H1's mechanism does reach the unregulated seat.** DARVO arms **2 per
|
||
seat per game**, scaling with the table — where the earlier figure was a
|
||
flat 400 in every cell, which was an artifact of the broken policy.
|
||
|
||
**Criterion 3's verdict is corrected.** The original said reactive *"wins
|
||
nothing, at any seat count"*. **False.** At 2p it wins **66 against
|
||
greedy's 68** — indistinguishable. It wins nothing at 3p and above, which
|
||
is also where greedy wins nothing.
|
||
|
||
## 2. The baseline finding, which is larger than H1
|
||
|
||
Look at the baseline half of the same run. Greedy and reactive are
|
||
**identical** — 132/165/190/200, zero attacks, zero DARVO, in all four
|
||
bands.
|
||
|
||
**Peak Stress held across the 1,600 baseline games was 2 — the starting
|
||
value, never exceeded.** Stress only ever went down.
|
||
|
||
**Three corrections to what this section originally said.**
|
||
|
||
1. It reported **1**, because `peak` was a maximum over `StressSet` event
|
||
*payloads*. Starting Stress is written by `setup`, never by an event,
|
||
so a table sitting at 2 all game reported 1 — and a table with no
|
||
`StressSet` at all would have reported 0. **Wrong subject**: the metric
|
||
answered *"highest value ever assigned"* while the prose claimed
|
||
*"highest Stress reached"*.
|
||
2. It said **3,200 baseline games**. The run is 3,200 *total*; the
|
||
baseline half is **1,600**.
|
||
3. It generalised to *"a policy built to be reckless with Stress plays
|
||
identically to one built to husband it"*. **False, and refuted by this
|
||
repo's own sibling harness**: `attack-value.rs`'s rank-95 policy is
|
||
exactly that policy, and under **baseline** it drives Stress to 5 and
|
||
arms DARVO 400–1000 times per cell.
|
||
|
||
**What survives, stated narrowly.** Under both policies measured here —
|
||
neither of which ever selects ATTACK under baseline — **no Stress is ever
|
||
added at all**. The baseline's Stress economy is reachable only through
|
||
ATTACK, so a table that does not attack never meets the gate, the arm, or
|
||
the Freedom token. That is still a real observation about F17, and it is
|
||
**about ATTACK being the sole inbound pressure**, not about the economy
|
||
being unreachable in general.
|
||
|
||
## 3. WITHDRAWN — "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker"
|
||
|
||
The original §3 argued that H1-B holds the attacker at Stress 4, below the
|
||
arm, and pushes its targets to 5 — inferred from a constant `darvo = 400`
|
||
and a final-Stress signature of `[5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]`.
|
||
|
||
**Withdrawn on two independent grounds, both found by the review.**
|
||
|
||
1. **The constant was the broken policy.** With the one-arm-override
|
||
policy, `darvo` scales with seats (363/600/800/1200). There is no
|
||
constant to explain.
|
||
2. **Disabling H1-B changes the arm count by exactly zero**, in every
|
||
cell, under the corrected policy. The effect attributed to H1-B's
|
||
arithmetic was an interaction with the undeclared preference deltas.
|
||
|
||
**And the inference was invalid even where the numbers held.** Final
|
||
Stress does not record who armed: `DarvoEnded` resets the stage to `Off`
|
||
and REVERSE applies −2 to its owner, so a seat can arm and finish below 5.
|
||
The review demonstrated six seats arming behind the same `[5,5,4,4,4,4]`
|
||
signature. **The original hedged the wrong variable** — it disclaimed "the
|
||
number 2" and defended "the direction", and the direction is the part that
|
||
failed.
|
||
|
||
## 4. What this does not say
|
||
|
||
- **`reactive` is not a good player and is not meant to be.** It wins
|
||
nothing under H1 and exactly what greedy wins under baseline. It is an
|
||
instrument for reaching the Stress economy, not a claim about how people
|
||
play.
|
||
- **Two policies is still not a panel.** RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1 asks
|
||
for greedy, random and first-legal at minimum; this pass added a fourth
|
||
axis to two of them, in one mode.
|
||
- **SHARED GROUND only.** CB-EV-0030 covered three modes; this covers one.
|
||
- **No felt-play**, and this is the kind of claim — about pressure, and
|
||
when a player feels cornered — that a human table answers and 3,200
|
||
simulated games do not.
|
||
|
||
## 5. Open
|
||
|
||
- **The baseline's Stress economy being unreachable (§2) deserves its own
|
||
finding**, and is not raised here because it wants the plural panel of
|
||
§4 first. It is the more consequential of the two results in this file.
|
||
- **Whether H1-B's suppression is intended** is ground-game's question,
|
||
and it is the sharpest thing this pass can hand them.
|