tegwick
0b8599bd88
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Five things worth their time, four of them asks rather than statements: F29 SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the SAME BOARD -- identical suit and value at every priority, every cell matching exactly. Not called a defect (a reskin is legitimate) but "four scenarios" is three boards. Asked whether it is intended. F30 SCN_04 is materially harder at 2p: 52/100 against 67 and 73, with every other parameter held by the edition itself -- same deal shape, same 6 available points, same threshold, same starting Stress. The lone difference is that it is the only 2p deal needing two of one suit. Causation explicitly NOT claimed; the falsifier is stated. Sensitivity: at 4p SCN_04 is 97 against 94/99, so it is not the hard board there. The modes finding, corrected in their favour: we previously reported the three modes produced identical play. That was OUR INSTRUMENT, not their game -- the bot never read the Mode card. With a mode-aware bot, group success is unchanged in 34 of 36 cells but coalition size moves by half again at 4p. So the modes decide the distribution of the win and the threshold decides survival independently of it. F28 (mastery counts cards where the shared score counts points) and F26 (a package that adds a FILE is invisible to a consumer) promoted to reported -- both need their ruling, neither changed on our side. F17 and F26 move raised -> reported now that they are in a delivered report. The register crossed the ~400-line loadability limit, so prose for CLOSED findings moved to FindingRegister-closed.md. The rows are untouched and `make design` still reads one file -- ADR-0012 D5's reasoning about mixing open and closed applies to files too. Report left UNCOMMITTED in ground-game: their tree has live uncommitted work from their own agent. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
255 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
255 lines
15 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 | reported | `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 | reported | `games_ground::edition::card_text_tests::which_scenarios_are_mechanically_distinct` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
| F30 | degenerate | reported | `games/ground/examples/scenario-panel.rs` | counterexample | 2026-08-08 | ground-game |
|
||
| F28 | underdetermined | reported | `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.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- **F29 — SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board.** Identical suit and
|
||
value at every priority; every measured cell matches exactly at every
|
||
seat band under both policies. **Not called a defect** — a reskin is a
|
||
legitimate design choice — but "four scenarios" is three boards, and a
|
||
study treating them as four independent samples double-counts one.
|
||
`inconsistent` because two artifacts that present as distinct are not;
|
||
the register does not have a kind for "intended duplication", and
|
||
inventing one before ground-game rules would be answering for them.
|
||
|
||
**Sensitivity:** none — this is an identity, not a measurement. It
|
||
holds for every seed and every seat band by construction, and the test
|
||
is a characterisation so a future divergence is a decision.
|
||
|
||
- **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.
|
||
|
||
- **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").
|
||
- **F28 — SHARED GROUND's mastery rating counts cards where the mode
|
||
card counts points.** *"All claimed Problem cards form one shared score.
|
||
… For a mastery rating, subtract 1 for each Blame token still in play
|
||
and 1 for each Denied Problem."* The shared score is claimed **value**
|
||
(`total`); `mastery` subtracts the same penalties from the claimed
|
||
**count**. Both readings fit the sentence and they differ on every game
|
||
where a 3-point Problem is claimed. Ours to report, theirs to rule.
|
||
|
||
**Sensitivity:** vary only the point value of the claimed Problems and
|
||
the gap moves with `sum(value) - count`. The two readings agree exactly
|
||
when every claimed Problem is worth 1 — no Problem in the edition is —
|
||
or when nothing is claimed, which is a loss. Everything else is held
|
||
fixed: same board, same penalties, same threshold.
|
||
|
||
- **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.
|
||
|
||
- **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.
|