tegwick
2242b32c11
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
ModuleAwarePolicy reads the resolved Rules, so 'a bot that does not attend to a mechanism cannot test claims about it' no longer holds for modules. The MODE half stands: no policy models a rival playing their objective, and that is the whole of what keeps F27 open. Recorded the second limit found while closing the first: the scope term is inert at round-one positions, so any measurement of problem_stress.scoped weighted toward early rounds is measuring a mechanism that has not started. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
257 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
257 lines
16 KiB
Markdown
# 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`.
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:begin -->
|
||
|
||
| 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 | applied | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 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 |
|
||
| F17 | degenerate | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
|
||
| F18 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_reads_only_part_of_what_it_vendored` | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F25 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_engine_agrees_with_the_editions_own_numbers` | default | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F24 | inert | raised | `games/ground/src/edition.rs::card_text_tests::the_hardcoded_deck_still_matches_the_edition` | default | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F19 | degenerate | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::overhead_table | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F20 | inert | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::ending_page | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F23 | inconsistent | applied | decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F26 | inert | ruled | `crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::a_scoped_table_says_what_a_scope_does` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
| F27 | unplayed | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F29 | inconsistent | applied | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
| F30 | degenerate | ruled | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
| F28 | underdetermined | applied | `games_ground::tests::the_mastery_rating_and_the_shared_score_count_different_things` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:end -->
|
||
|
||
Prose for **closed** findings (withdrawn or applied) lives in
|
||
[`FindingRegister-closed.md`](FindingRegister-closed.md); the rows above
|
||
are the whole register and `make design` reads them from here.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- **F30 — SCN_04 is materially harder at 2 players.** 52/100 group
|
||
success against 67 and 73, with **every other parameter held by the
|
||
edition itself**: same deal shape, same 6 available points, same
|
||
threshold 5, same starting Stress. The lone difference is that SCN_04
|
||
is the only 2p deal needing **two of one suit** (Repair, Clarify,
|
||
Repair).
|
||
|
||
**Causation is not established** and the finding does not claim it. The
|
||
falsifier is a deck with a doubled suit that does not lose group
|
||
success.
|
||
|
||
**Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the gap closes — at 4p
|
||
SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is *not* the hard board there. The
|
||
effect is specific to the 2p deal, which is the band where the deck has
|
||
fewest cards to route around a suit it cannot match.
|
||
|
||
**RULED 2026-08-08:** acceptable variety for now; SCN_04 stands as a
|
||
harder board and is monitored. If table feel proves too swingy the
|
||
first lever is priority-2's suit (dropping the double Repair), **not**
|
||
the global thresholds — which also confirms our reading that the suit
|
||
multiset is the operative difference, without our having measured it.
|
||
- **F27 — the two competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative
|
||
play.** `scenario-panel` finds group success *exactly* equal across
|
||
SHARED GROUND, COMMON PROBLEM and BONDED COALITIONS in all 36 cells.
|
||
Correct arithmetic: `GreedyPolicy` maximises the group outcome and
|
||
never reads `state.mode`, so the same games are played and only the
|
||
winner set is carved differently. **Whether a mode changes how GROUND
|
||
is played is therefore untested**, and cannot be tested by any panel
|
||
built from the current policies — it needs one that plays for personal
|
||
score. `unplayed` rather than `inert`: the modes score correctly, they
|
||
have simply never faced a seat that wanted to win alone.
|
||
|
||
**Re-measured 2026-08-08 with `ObjectivePolicy`** (CB-WP-0049 T03),
|
||
which plays its seat's own objective. The finding **splits in two**:
|
||
|
||
- **Group success does not move.** 34 of 36 cells identical; SCN_03 at
|
||
4p goes 99→100 in all three modes, which is the SOLVE-by-value
|
||
refinement and not a mode effect. **Whether the table survives is the
|
||
same game in all three modes.**
|
||
- **Who wins does move.** Under BONDED COALITIONS at 4p, winning seats
|
||
per game go 2.04 → 2.98 (SCN_01/02), 2.12 → 3.29 (SCN_03), 2.05 →
|
||
3.01 (SCN_04): a seat whose score is its coalition's sum bonds more,
|
||
and the coalitions get about half again as large. COMMON PROBLEM
|
||
moves at 6p (1.10 → 1.17).
|
||
|
||
So the modes **do** reach decisions — the original claim that they are
|
||
"scoring lenses over cooperative play" was too strong, and is withdrawn
|
||
in favour of the sharper one: **GROUND's scoring modes change who wins,
|
||
not whether the group succeeds.**
|
||
|
||
**Sensitivity:** vary only the seat band and the effect appears and
|
||
disappears — 2p shows no divergence in any mode, 4p shows the largest,
|
||
6p shows none under BONDED COALITIONS. A candidate explanation is that
|
||
two relation slots per seat cap network growth, so at 6p the incentive
|
||
exists and cannot be acted on; **that is untested** and is the next
|
||
thing to vary.
|
||
|
||
**Still open**, because the part that motivated it is untested: no
|
||
policy models a *rival* playing their objective, so a competitive mode
|
||
in which nobody anticipates an opponent remains a weak test of that
|
||
mode (CB-WP-0049 "Not done here").
|
||
|
||
**The seat-band explanation is answered, 2026-08-08.** ground-game:
|
||
the two-relation-slot limit is an **intentional cap** on complexity and
|
||
play time; a third slot stays an extension rather than core r0. So the
|
||
6p flatness is designed, not a defect — and our sensitivity run is
|
||
welcome but would be measuring an extension, not the shipped game.
|
||
|
||
**The aspect half is closed, 2026-08-08** (CB-WP-0049 T04).
|
||
`ModuleAwarePolicy` reads the resolved `Rules`, so "a bot that does not
|
||
attend to a mechanism cannot test claims about it" no longer holds for
|
||
modules. **The mode half stands**: no policy models a *rival* playing
|
||
their objective, so a competitive mode in which nobody anticipates an
|
||
opponent remains weakly tested. That is the whole of what keeps this
|
||
open.
|
||
|
||
A second limit surfaced while closing the first: the scope term is
|
||
**inert at round-one positions**, because one Problem is face up and a
|
||
ranking preference needs two candidates. Any measurement of
|
||
`problem_stress.scoped` weighted toward early rounds is measuring a
|
||
mechanism that has not started.
|
||
- **F26 — a package that adds a FILE is invisible, where a package that
|
||
adds a column is not.** `h2-scoped-problem-stress` ships
|
||
`Rules_Text.csv` — twenty-two passages of player-facing rules, including
|
||
the one passage that says what a `stress_scope` does. No reader in
|
||
clay-borg mentioned the file, so `edition-check` could not call it stale
|
||
(a file nothing reads is not out of date, it is unseen) and no gate
|
||
could call it unread. The rule the table's whole layout encodes sat in
|
||
the repo, reachable by no player, for the entire measured life of H2.
|
||
|
||
**Inert rather than underdetermined**: nothing is ambiguous about the
|
||
rule and the engine implements it correctly — the text simply could not
|
||
fire. Third instance of F18's shape and the first where the unit is a
|
||
file, which is why it is filed separately instead of folded in.
|
||
|
||
Raised against `ground-game` because the actionable half is theirs: a
|
||
package's manifest should name its own files, so that a consumer reading
|
||
none of them is a detectable state. clay-borg now reads the one passage
|
||
it needed (CB-WP-0046); the other twenty-one remain unread and that is
|
||
the standing evidence.
|
||
|
||
**RULED 2026-08-08:** accepted as a process ask. Catalog and modules
|
||
will declare `consumed_files` / overlays so a consumer reading none of
|
||
a package's files is a detectable state. Tracked on their side under
|
||
GROUND-WP-0008.
|
||
- **F17 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
|
||
from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
|
||
positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**:
|
||
`games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs`, 200 games per cell, one number
|
||
varied — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy.
|
||
|
||
| ATTACK ranked | wins (2/3/4/5/6p) | attacks | DARVO armed |
|
||
|---|---|---:|---:|
|
||
| 10 (below all) | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200 | 0 | 0 |
|
||
| 75 (above SUPPORT) | **132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200** | 315–923 | 13–218 |
|
||
| 95 (above SOLVE) | **0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 1400–5170 | 400–1000 |
|
||
|
||
**The middle row is the finding: identical win counts at every seat
|
||
count**, while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO. Attacking
|
||
is not punished — it is **inert with respect to the goal**. Group success
|
||
is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK only costs anything when it
|
||
ranks above SOLVE and displaces it.
|
||
|
||
**So the maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than the
|
||
phrasing.** There is no incentive because there is no *path*: ATTACK's
|
||
effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
|
||
`group_success`.
|
||
|
||
**Asked in all three modes 2026-08-07, and ATTACK earns its place in
|
||
none of them:**
|
||
|
||
| mode | never attack | attack sometimes |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| SHARED GROUND | 132/165/190/200 | **identical** — free but pointless |
|
||
| COMMON PROBLEM | 59/52/48/44 | 59/52/48/**34** — a cost at six seats |
|
||
| BONDED COALITIONS | 131/134/132/116 | **59/52/48/34** — roughly halved |
|
||
|
||
**The coalitions row has a mechanism the data confirms.** GR-A07 flips a
|
||
Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond *networks* — so
|
||
attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking numbers in
|
||
E04 are **identical** to E03's, which is exactly what that predicts:
|
||
break every Bond and each seat becomes a coalition of one, so GR-E04
|
||
degenerates into GR-E03.
|
||
|
||
**Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
|
||
is *about* not falling into; a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
|
||
design. The question for `ground-game` is whether the namesake mechanic
|
||
being unreachable in competent co-op play is intended.
|
||
- **F18 — the engine imports one of nineteen edition files, so the cards
|
||
cannot say what they do.** Reported as *"I don't understand the GROUND
|
||
card"* — which is not a design gap: `Actions.csv` carries that card's
|
||
tagline (*"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide."*) and full rules text,
|
||
and clay-borg never imported it. Every other card is the same: a player
|
||
sees `Clarify` where the card reads *"Ask What Happened — Invite a
|
||
concrete account before judging."* **`inert`**: the data exists and
|
||
cannot fire, because nothing reads it. **Ours, and CB-WP-0028 fixes it.**
|
||
- **F25 — the engine hardcodes numbers the edition states.**
|
||
`GroundState::threshold` is a `match` returning 5/7/9 while
|
||
`Scenarios.csv` carries `threshold_2_players`, `threshold_3_4_players`
|
||
and `threshold_5_6_players`; setup writes `stress: 2` against *"All
|
||
players start at Stress 2."*; the engine plays five rounds against a
|
||
printed 1–5 track. **All three agree, on all four scenarios**, and that
|
||
is the finding rather than the reassurance: these are the most contested
|
||
numbers in the project — the whole 4/6/9 versus 5/7/9 episode turned on
|
||
them — and the engine has been right by maintenance coincidence rather
|
||
than by reading the file that owns them. **`inert`**, role `default`:
|
||
green because they agree, red the moment either side moves. **Ours.**
|
||
Same shape as F24.
|
||
|
||
- **F24 — the draw pile is a Rust literal.** `solution_deck()` builds six
|
||
of each suit from an array and never opens `Solutions.csv`, whose `suit`
|
||
and `quantity` columns say the same thing. **They agree today** — 24
|
||
rows, six per suit — so nothing is wrong now, and that is the point:
|
||
the engine is right by maintenance coincidence rather than by reading.
|
||
**`inert`**: the data exists and cannot fire. Role `default`, not
|
||
`counterexample` — the reproduction is green *because* the two agree,
|
||
which is the state GameDesign §1.3 says to expect from a documented
|
||
provisional choice, and it turns red the moment either side moves.
|
||
**Ours.** CB-WP-0037 T02 deletes the literal.
|
||
|
||
- **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.
|