tegwick
0f64961d06
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 `Ground if gated => 100`, so it grounds the instant the stress gate bites, Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is unreachable by construction. "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` is greedy with exactly one preference changed: GROUND demoted below ATTACK. Under it, H1's criteria 1 and 2 are MET — DARVO arms 400 times per cell, ATTACK is chosen 3 times per seat per game. Criterion 3 fails harder: reactive wins nothing at any seat count. The larger finding is about the baseline. Greedy and reactive play IDENTICALLY under baseline, and peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games was 1 — against a starting value of 2. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5 and the Freedom token are all unreachable, and a policy built to be reckless with Stress is indistinguishable from one built to husband it. That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. Not raised as a finding yet: it wants the plural panel first. A constant was investigated rather than reported: darvo was exactly 400 in every cell while atk scaled with seats. Six-player final Stress is [5,5,4,4,4,4] every seed — H1-B holds the attacker at 4, below the arm, and pushes its targets to 5. The self-soothe suppresses DARVO in the aggressor and concentrates it in the attacked. The direction follows from H1-B's arithmetic; the number 2 is partly an artifact of reactive's first-legal targeting, and is labelled as such. Still unreviewed: tier L review outstanding on CB-WP-0038, and nothing here reaches ground-game until it runs. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.7 KiB
Chaos roll — window records
One entry per chaos window. Split out of InnerLoopReference.md when that
file crossed the loadability limit: this is a log that grows, and a log
inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference.
The rule itself lives in InnerLoop.md §Loop tiers; the
current window's terms are there. This is the history the verdicts rest on.
Window 1 (d4, closed 2026-08-02): 12 declarations, 2 overrides, one each way, and both changed the outcome. The mechanism was kept and the rate dropped d4 → d8 (CB-EV-0015 §5, CB-EV-0016 §4).
Window 2 (d8, 2026-08-03 → 2026-08-07): 12 declarations, of which 11 rolled at d8 — declaration 1 (CB-WP-0018) opened the window and rolled at the old d4. Expected 8s: 1.375. Observed: 1.
| decl | pass | roll | effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0018 | d4 = 3 | opened the window at the old rate |
| 2 | CB-WP-0019 | d8 = 5 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0020 | d8 = 8 | override — drew S over a structural S: changed nothing |
| 4 | CB-WP-0021 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5–9 | CB-WP-0022…0026 | d8 = 6 ×5 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0027 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 11 | CB-WP-0028 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0029 | d8 = 4 | — |
Verdict (ADR-0017): the rate is behaving as designed. One override against 1.375 expected is not a shortage of evidence.
Why the retirement condition changed. "An override changes nothing twice running" requires a consecutive pair, each with P = 1/3, so ~12 overrides are expected before one occurs — at ~1.4 overrides per window, ~9 windows or roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out on any realistic horizon is decoration (ADR-0006 D3). It is now evaluated per window, needing two consecutive qualifying windows: ~24 declarations rather than ~100.
Four evidence files claimed window 2 produced zero overrides. They were wrong, and each cited the one before rather than counting. See F23 — the failure is a claim with no source, asserted once and repeated, which no gate here detects.
A post-hoc observation, deliberately not acted on. Declarations 5–9
rolled six five times running (~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven
rolls). shuf was tested over 200 rapid successive calls and looks
uniform, longest run three. Recorded so a future window can check whether
it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own.
Window 3 — opened 2026-08-07 at d8, running to 12 declarations
| # | pass | roll | override |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0030 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 2 | CB-WP-0031 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0032 | d8 = 6 | — |
| 4 | CB-WP-0033 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5 | CB-WP-0034 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 6 | CB-WP-0035 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 7 | CB-WP-0036 (first declaration) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 8 | CB-WP-0036 (re-declared L→M) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0038 | d8 = 8 | yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing |
| 11 | CB-WP-0039 | d8 = 2 | — |
The window's first 8, at declaration 10. Expectation over ten rolls at d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate.
The override changed nothing, which is the observation ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition is built from — it needs a full window whose overrides all change nothing, in two consecutive windows. This window now has one qualifying override and one declaration left to run.
Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan, counted separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was re-scoped from L to M after the maintainer moved the animation work out of the repo, and a changed declaration is a new declaration or the roll is not binding on what was actually built.