tegwick
a928b5925c
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
ground-game packages hypotheses as selectable rules variants — a catalog, a rules_delta.yaml, and prose — and their note is explicit that CSV text alone is not executable here. So the kernel gains a Variant in game state: in the state, therefore in the hash, therefore in the recording, because a scenario replayed under a different variant would diverge silently. Baseline is bit-for-bit what it was, asserted across seat counts and seeds. A variant system that perturbs the baseline invalidates every measurement this repo has. H1-A and H1-B implemented from rules_delta.yaml and mutation-proven on their own defects: "unclaimed" misread as face-up-and-unsolved, and the attacker's Stress read after the attack's effects. Their `unchanged:` list is asserted rather than trusted — that list is their claim about their own experiment. Measured, and three of their four criteria fail. DARVO arm rate is still 0 under greedy; ATTACK selection does not rise and falls for the rank-75 policy; group success collapses from 165/190/200 to 0 at 3/4/6 seats. The mechanism is not the assumed one: greedy answers the pressure by regulating, Stress plateaus at 3, so it never reaches the gate at 4 or the arm at 5 — H1-A acts as a solve-rate tax and H1-B is unreachable under competent play. A harness defect was caught before the claim: sweep discarded refused games silently and never reported its count, so "nobody won" and "nothing played" printed identically. Reporting H1 as unwinnable on that basis would have been the ADR-0018 family aimed at another repo's design. All 200 games ran in every cell; the zeros are real. Chaos d8 = 8 — the window's first override, redrew L against a structural L, so it changed nothing. Window 3 recorded in ChaosRollHistory. NOT REVIEWED: tier L owes a separate-agent adversarial review, and no H1 result may reach ground-game until it has run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
115 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
115 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# CB-EV-0030 — H1 measured
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0038. Tier L (structural L; **chaos d8 = 8 → override, redraw = L**
|
||
— the override changed nothing). **Declaration 10 of chaos window 3, and
|
||
the window's first 8.** Closed 2026-08-08.
|
||
|
||
> **This evidence has not had its tier-L adversarial review** (InnerLoop
|
||
> Step 2). **It may not go to `ground-game` until it has.** It is a
|
||
> measurement of another repo's design hypothesis, which is precisely the
|
||
> case the review exists for.
|
||
|
||
**Delivered:** variant selection in the kernel, H1-A and H1-B implemented
|
||
from `rules_delta.yaml`, ground-game's `unchanged:` list asserted rather
|
||
than trusted, and the ATTACK panel re-run for both rule sets.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. The result, against their own criteria
|
||
|
||
`ground-game`'s success criteria (design note §3.2), answered one by one.
|
||
**Three of four fail.**
|
||
|
||
| # | criterion | verdict |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial, "not 0/500" | **fails** — still **0** under greedy at every seat count |
|
||
| 2 | ATTACK selection rises for some subpopulation | **fails** — greedy still attacks **0** times; and for the rank-75 policy ATTACK *fell*, 604 → 180 at 2p |
|
||
| 3 | group success does not collapse | **fails hardest** — greedy's wins go **165 → 0** (3p), **190 → 0** (4p), **200 → 0** (6p) |
|
||
| 4 | Bond/GROUND stay better than DARVO | holds, but **vacuously**: DARVO never fires |
|
||
|
||
SHARED GROUND, greedy column, 200 games per cell:
|
||
|
||
| seats | baseline won | H1 won |
|
||
|---|---:|---:|
|
||
| 2p | 132 | **68** |
|
||
| 3p | 165 | **0** |
|
||
| 4p | 190 | **0** |
|
||
| 6p | 200 | **0** |
|
||
|
||
## 2. Why — and the mechanism is not the one H1 assumed
|
||
|
||
H1-A was meant to raise Stress toward the DARVO arm at 5. **It does not
|
||
get there under competent play.** One 3-player game, seed 1:
|
||
|
||
| | rounds | final Stress | Problems unclaimed | DARVO armed | outcome |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| baseline | 5 | 0, 1, 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 of 7 — **success** |
|
||
| H1 | 5 | 3, 3, 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 of 7 — **failure** |
|
||
|
||
**Greedy spends its actions on Stress instead of Problems.** The pressure
|
||
is answered by regulating, so Stress plateaus around 3 — below the gate at
|
||
4 and well below the arm at 5 — while two Problems go unclaimed and the
|
||
total lands under the threshold.
|
||
|
||
**So H1-A behaves as a solve-rate tax, not as DARVO pressure.** And since
|
||
Stress never reaches 4, **H1-B never fires at all under competent play**:
|
||
the self-soothe is unreachable by the policy it was designed to tempt.
|
||
|
||
**The seat-count pattern is the tell.** At 2p — three Problems, so a table
|
||
can clear the board — H1 *helps* in SHARED (132 → 68 is a fall, but 2p is
|
||
the only band that still wins at all). At 3p and above the board is bigger
|
||
than the pressure allows a table to clear, and success goes to zero. The
|
||
tax scales with the number of Problems; the intended effect does not.
|
||
|
||
## 3. The harness defect caught before the claim
|
||
|
||
The first run showed `won`, `atk` and `darvo` **all exactly 0** at 3+
|
||
seats. That is the signature of games being *discarded*, not lost.
|
||
|
||
`sweep` had `let Ok(g) = play(st, &mut ps) else { continue };` and **never
|
||
reported its game count**, so a run in which nothing played and a run in
|
||
which nothing won were the same output.
|
||
|
||
> **Reporting "H1 makes the game unwinnable" when the truth might have
|
||
> been "our harness threw every H1 game away" would have been the
|
||
> ADR-0018 family — aimed, this time, at another repository's design
|
||
> decision.**
|
||
|
||
Instrumented: setup failures counted, `play` errors captured and printed,
|
||
`games != 200` reported. **All 200 ran in every cell.** The zeros are
|
||
real, and now they are known to be real.
|
||
|
||
## 4. What this evidence does not say
|
||
|
||
- **It does not say H1 is a bad idea.** It says these two deltas, at these
|
||
magnitudes, measured by this panel, do not do what §3.2 asks. Their §6
|
||
already has the branch for it: *"H1 measured | DARVO still ~0 | add Idea
|
||
2 last-place stress (semi only) as H2"*.
|
||
- **The panel is greedy-family throughout** — greedy, and greedy with
|
||
ATTACK reranked to 75 and 95. Plural, per RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1,
|
||
but not diverse. A policy that *manages Stress badly* would reach 5 and
|
||
arm DARVO, and none of these do. **That is the obvious next measurement
|
||
and it has not been run.**
|
||
- **No felt-play.** GROUND-WP-0003 T01–T05 runs human tables separately,
|
||
and 200-game aggregates cannot say what a table feels like.
|
||
|
||
## 5. A tuning direction, offered as a question and not a finding
|
||
|
||
If the aim is Stress reaching 5 sometimes, the tax must outrun regulation.
|
||
Candidates, none measured: pressure scaling with the *number* of unclaimed
|
||
Problems rather than a flat +1; applying it only above a Round threshold;
|
||
or lowering the DARVO arm below 5. **Each is a rules change and therefore
|
||
ground-game's to make, not ours to propose as a fix.**
|
||
|
||
## 6. Cost
|
||
|
||
`make cost`, not inlined. One vendored catalog and one experiment package;
|
||
no new dependency.
|
||
|
||
## Open after this pass
|
||
|
||
- **The tier-L adversarial review**, before any of this travels.
|
||
- **A policy that regulates badly**, which is the measurement §4 names.
|
||
- **H1-B has never been observed firing** in a real game — only in a unit
|
||
test. A delta that competent play cannot reach is untested where it
|
||
matters.
|