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>
4.8 KiB
CB-EV-0031 — a seat that does not regulate
CB-WP-0039. Tier M (adds a policy to the panel every future measurement is reported against; chaos d8 = 2 → no override). Declaration 11 of chaos window 3. Closed 2026-08-08.
Like CB-EV-0030, this has not had the tier-L adversarial review that pass owes, and none of it may reach
ground-gameuntil that review has run.
Delivered: the reactive policy, and the measurement CB-EV-0030 §4
named as the one it had not run.
1. It changes CB-EV-0030's verdict
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 Action::Ground if gated => 100: the instant the
stress gate bites it grounds. Stress plateaus at 3, and the arm at 5 is
unreachable by construction. So "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 one preference changed: GROUND demoted below
ATTACK. SHARED GROUND, 200 games per cell, all 200 ran in every cell:
| greedy | reactive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| seats | won | atk | darvo | peak | won | atk | darvo | peak |
| 2p | 68 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1200 | 400 | 5 |
| 3p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1800 | 400 | 5 |
| 4p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2400 | 400 | 5 |
| 6p | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3600 | 400 | 5 |
H1's mechanism works. Criterion 1 (DARVO arm rate non-trivial) and criterion 2 (ATTACK selection rises for some subpopulation) are met — for the subpopulation H1 was aimed at. CB-EV-0030 reported both as failures, and that report was about greedy.
Criterion 3 still fails, and now worse. Reactive wins nothing, at any seat count, under H1.
2. The baseline finding, which is larger than H1
Look at the baseline half of the same run. Greedy and reactive are identical — 132/165/190/200, zero attacks, zero DARVO, in all four bands.
Peak Stress across 3,200 baseline games was 1. Starting Stress is 2, so no seat's Stress was ever set above 1: it only ever went down.
The baseline's entire Stress economy is unreachable under this panel. The gate at 4, the DARVO arm at 5, the Freedom token that buys past the gate — none of it can engage, and a policy built to be reckless with Stress plays identically to one built to husband it.
That is a deeper account of F17 than F17 has. ATTACK is not merely unrewarding; the pressure it is supposed to answer never exists. H1 is an attempt to fix exactly this, and it is aimed at the right thing.
3. What H1-B actually does, which is not what it was for
darvo is exactly 400 in every cell while atk scales cleanly with
seats (1200 / 1800 / 2400 / 3600 = 3 per seat per game). A constant across
seat counts is an artifact smell, so it was measured rather than reported.
Six-player final Stress, every seed: [5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4]. Exactly two
seats arm, whatever the table size.
The self-soothe is doing it. An attacker at Stress ≥ 4 takes −1 for a landed Attack, which holds it at 4 — below the arm — while its targets take +1 or +2 and climb to 5. H1-B suppresses DARVO in the seat that attacks and concentrates it in the seat attacked.
The hypothesis wanted ATTACK to be rational at high Stress. It is. The side effect is that the aggressor is the one seat protected from arming.
Stated as a limitation, not a finding about H1: reactive picks its
Attack target by first-legal, not by any judgement, so the concentration
on two seats is partly an artifact of crude targeting. The direction —
attackers held at 4, targets pushed to 5 — follows from H1-B's arithmetic
and does not depend on the targeting. The number 2 does.
4. What this does not say
reactiveis not a good player and is not meant to be. It wins nothing under H1 and exactly what greedy wins under baseline. It is an instrument for reaching the Stress economy, not a claim about how people play.- Two policies is still not a panel. RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1 asks for greedy, random and first-legal at minimum; this pass added a fourth axis to two of them, in one mode.
- SHARED GROUND only. CB-EV-0030 covered three modes; this covers one.
- No felt-play, and this is the kind of claim — about pressure, and when a player feels cornered — that a human table answers and 3,200 simulated games do not.
5. Open
- The baseline's Stress economy being unreachable (§2) deserves its own finding, and is not raised here because it wants the plural panel of §4 first. It is the more consequential of the two results in this file.
- Whether H1-B's suppression is intended is ground-game's question, and it is the sharpest thing this pass can hand them.