clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0047-all-four-boards-and-all-three-modes.md

id	kind	title	status	state_hub_workstream_id
CB-WP-0047	product	All four boards and all three modes	done	772b2646-1258-409b-8480-6dedd6c5c894

Purpose

structural tier  M   (changes the state and therefore the recording, and
                      moves a reported number -- the threshold -- from the
                      engine to the edition)
declared tier    M

"lets have a look at the cards and the rules to those cards again and implement all the scenarios and modes"

What was actually missing

The two halves turned out to be very different sizes.

The modes were already implemented. ScoringMode's three arms all score, --mode reaches them, F14 fixed the driver. What was missing was that nothing had ever compared them, and the page never named them — see below.

The scenarios were not implemented at all. edition::deal has taken a scenario_id since the day it was written, and the only caller passed the literal "SCN_01":

let dealt = crate::edition::deal("SCN_01", seats)?;

The seam was the whole mechanism and it sat unused. 15 of the 20 Problem cards had never been dealt by anything — not a gate, not a panel, not a player. Nothing was red, because nothing asked.

Task: deal every board, name every mode

id: CB-WP-0047-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "d6298fa3-8c3d-4a47-ae52-945549b9ba95"

The scenario is state

GroundState.scenario, #[serde(default = "default_scenario")] → SCN_01. In the state for the same reason variant is (CB-WP-0038): the board and the threshold follow from it, so a recording that did not carry it could not be replayed.

standard-Np keeps meaning SCN_01. Twenty-six recorded scenarios name that preset; a grammar that redefined it would have moved every one of their boards while their hashes still claimed to pin them. scn-03-4p names the rest. --scenario accepts 3, scn-03, SCN_03 or confidence — ids are the edition's vocabulary, "Broken Confidence" is the player's — and is validated against the edition, never a pattern, so SCN_09 is refused by name.

The threshold now comes off the Scenario card

threshold() was match seats { 0..=2 => 5, 3..=4 => 7, _ => 9 } — the engine's own copy of a number four cards already print, which is what F25 was raised about.

The first version of this control was worthless and mutation said so. Reverting to the hardcoded bands left every test green, because all four scenarios print 5/7/9 and the two paths are observationally identical on every input the edition can supply. A control that cannot separate the thing it is about from its fallback is not a control.

Fixed by splitting threshold_from(list, scenario, seats), which can be handed a card that disagrees (4/6/8). That test goes red under the mutation; the loop over real scenarios never could.

The page names the mode, the board, and what winning means

The header read scoring CommonProblem — the Rust variant's name, where the Mode card is titled "COMMON PROBLEM, PERSONAL EDGE". CB-WP-0034 deleted this exact defect from the move buttons and it was still standing on the one line that says what winning means.

And the coverage probe was holding it in place. ("mode", "scoring BondedCoalitions") — a probe matching Debug output, which went red the moment the defect was fixed. That is the third time this shape has been found (CB-WP-0024, CB-WP-0034, here), and it is now specific enough to state as a rule: a probe that names a rendering pins that rendering; probes name facts.

The page now carries the Scenario's premise (what happened) and the Mode card's rules text (how this game is won) — including the tiebreak, which is a rule a player can play for: "lower Stress, then more Bonds" changes what a losing seat should do in round five, and it lived in a column nothing read.

Mutations

mutation	what went red
setup deals "SCN_01" regardless of preset	"the four scenarios yield 1 distinct board"
threshold_from ignores the card	"the threshold did not come off the Scenario card"
header back to {mode:?}	"the page shows the Rust variant's name"

Done 2026-08-08. make all green. Verified live on make ground SCENARIO=4 MODE=coalitions.

What the panel found

make panels gained scenario-panel: 4 scenarios × 3 modes × 3 seat bands, greedy throughout, 100 games per cell.

1. Two of the four scenarios are the same board. SCN_01 and SCN_02 have identical suits and values at every priority; every cell matches exactly. Not a defect — a designed reskin is a legitimate choice — but "four scenarios" buys three boards, and a panel that measured them as four independent boards would be measuring one of them twice. Pinned by a characterisation test so a future divergence is a decision, not a drift.

2. SCN_04 is the hard board at 2 players — 52% group success against 67% and 73%. It is the only deck that needs two Repair solutions in the 2p deal, and the 2p Solution draw cannot always supply them. The seat band the thresholds treat as uniform is not uniform across boards.

3. The three modes produce identical play. Group success is exactly equal across all three modes in every cell. That is correct arithmetic and a real finding: GreedyPolicy maximises the group outcome and never consults state.mode, so the two competitive modes are scoring lenses over cooperative play. win/g differs only by how the winner set is carved from the same games. Whether COMMON PROBLEM and BONDED COALITIONS change how the game is played is untested and cannot be tested by this panel — it needs a policy that plays for personal score. Filed as F27.

4. Every board is a formality at 6 players — 100% group success in all twelve cells. Consistent with F17's shape and with H2's motivation; noted, not acted on.

Not done here

• No policy plays for personal score, so F27 stands open and the two competitive modes remain unexercised as incentives. This is the largest remaining gap and it is the natural next pass.

• SHARED GROUND's mastery rating counts CLAIMED CARDS, not points. The Mode card says "All claimed Problem cards form one shared score … subtract 1 for each Blame token still in play and 1 for each Denied Problem" — and the shared score is the claimed value, while mastery subtracts from the claimed count. Underdetermined rather than plainly wrong; raised for ground-game rather than changed here, because scoring is theirs to rule on.

• The trial log stamps the variant (CB-WP-0046) but not the scenario or the mode. A note from SCN_04 coalitions is indistinguishable from a baseline SHARED GROUND note, which is the same defect one pass later in two new axes. The marker already carries attributes, so this is small.

• design.py reported an existing reproduction as absent. It stats row["repro"] directly, and the register writes code spans — so a backticked file path was os.path.exists("games/…/x.rs") = False. Named tests survived because :: short-circuits before the stat, which is why it had never shown. F27's panel existed and counted as debt against a target of zero. ADR-0018's shape again: right computation, wrong string. Fixed with three checks, including that stripping the span must not turn the check off.

• catalog.yaml and both VARIANT.mds were re-vendored in this pass: ground-game moved H2 from experimental to measured, decision: keep-as-experiment, citing our CB-EV-0032. That is their ruling on the previous pass, not work done here.