tegwick
0f64961d06
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
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>
107 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
107 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# 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](CB-EV-0030-h1-measured.md), **this has not had the
|
||
> tier-L adversarial review that pass owes, and none of it may reach
|
||
> `ground-game` until 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
|
||
|
||
- **`reactive` is 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.
|