tegwick
631fb41fc2
ADR-0016, Tokens.csv vendored, tracks and discs on the table, and a supply audit that found nothing and says so. T03 MEASURED BEFORE T01 DECIDED. 750 games, 2-6 seats, greedy and random: Protection reaches 1 per seat and 2 on the table against a supply of 6; Denied 3 of 5; relation links EXACTLY 12 OF 12 and never more; Focus/Blame 0 conflicts. The link row is the interesting one -- GR-L01's two-slot rule IS the twelve-token supply written twice, which is the shape of a supply needing no separate enforcement. AND THE FIRST VERSION OF THE FOCUS/BLAME CHECK WAS WRONG. It compared a seat's own placed Focus against its OWN blame_from -- but that list holds OTHER players' discs, so they are different tokens. It reported 2 conflicts; corrected, it reports 0. Fifth instance of this project's recurring defect, a number computed correctly about the wrong subject, and the first caught before it left the repo rather than by a reviewer. D2: a token is a VIEW, not a type. The aggregate gains no `Token` -- adding one would create a second source of truth for Stress, and the first time they disagreed the bug would be invisible because both would look internally consistent. D3: quantity does NOT bind, and the reason is not the measurement. A component limit the rules do not state is not a rule. Refusing a seventh Protection token would enforce something nobody ruled -- CB-WP-0023's error inverted: SOLVE was OFFERED where it could not act; this would REFUSE where the rules allow. The check ships as a standing control, so a future violation becomes a question for ground-game (does the box bound the game, or do the rules?) rather than a bound the engine invented. Registered as F22, withdrawn: a stated negative, because a survey that finds nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one never run. D4: Stress on a 0-5 track that turns red at 5 where DARVO arms, DARVO on OFF/DENY/ATTACK/REVERSE, Freedom as the two-sided disc the edition says it is, Protection and Blame counted, Lead and Round on the table. Two tests broke on token discs and both were FIXTURE defects: seat_centres matched every <circle> and track stops are circles. Seats now carry class="seat". The table height limit went 460 -> 500 as a CORRECTION, not a concession. 460 had no derivation; 500 does -- ~800px viewport less ~120 header and ~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging was 620. CB-WP-0021 T06's rule is to fix the measurement rather than lower the floor, and an underived number is a measurement defect. make all: exit 0. 66 render tests, 26 cb-play. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.9 KiB
ADR-0016: a token is a view, and the supply is not a rule we get to invent
status: accepted date: 2026-08-07 decided by: agent, under the standing loop authorization tier: M (structural M — imports another edition file under AM-4's budgets; chaos d8=4 → no override). Tier M merges survey and decision. references: CB-WP-0029, ADR-0015 (the import test and the hand reader), ADR-0011, GameDesign.md §1
Context
The engine models every token correctly and shows them as numbers on a
seat card — protect 2, blamed by P3. Tokens.csv describes them as
components, with a quantity and a sides count, and that raised a
question worth measuring before deciding anything.
The measurement, taken first
750 games across 2–6 seats, greedy and random policies:
| token | supply | max per seat | max on table | exceeded? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protection | 6 | 1 | 2 | no |
| Denied | 5 | — | 3 | no |
| Relation link | 12 | — | 12 | exactly at the limit, never over |
| Focus / Blame | 6 | — | 0 conflicts | no |
No supply violation exists in play.
And the first version of that check was wrong. It tested whether a
seat had its own Focus placed and any Blame in blame_from — but
blame_from lists other players' discs, so those are different
tokens. It reported 2 conflicts. Corrected, it reports 0. Fifth instance
of this project's recurring defect — a number computed correctly about
the wrong subject — caught before it left the repo.
The link row is the interesting one. Twelve tokens, two per player, six players: the supply is exactly consumed at full occupancy and never exceeded, because GR-L01 already enforces two slots per seat. The component count and the rule are the same constraint written twice — and that is the shape of a supply that does not need separate enforcement.
D1 — vendor Tokens.csv
ADR-0015's test: does it carry text a player reads? front_text (READY,
DENIED, PROTECTION, FOCUS, LEAD, ROUND) and use do. shape, size and
symbol_id are print instructions and are read by nothing here.
Vendored whole with a digest, as the others are — taking a column subset would mean a second decision every time a column becomes interesting.
D2 — a token is a view, not a type
The aggregate gains no Token. A token is a way of seeing state the
aggregate already holds: the Stress marker is stress, the DARVO pawn is
darvo, the Freedom disc is freedom_ready.
Adding a Token type would create a second source of truth for Stress,
and the first time they disagreed the bug would be invisible — both would
look internally consistent. This is INTENT's own rule: own the
semantics, and do not duplicate them for presentation's sake.
So Tokens.csv supplies labels and counts for the renderer, and
nothing in games_ground changes shape.
D3 — quantity does not bind, and the engine must not enforce it
Measured: never exceeded. But the reason for the decision is not the measurement.
A component limit the rules do not state is not a rule.
GroundRules.md derives 59 rules from the dataset and none of them
mentions a token supply. If the engine began refusing a seventh
Protection token, it would be enforcing a constraint nobody ruled — which
is exactly the error CB-WP-0023 exists to correct, in the other direction:
SOLVE was offered where it could not act, and this would refuse where
the rules allow.
What is done instead: the supply check ships as a runnable check
(T03), so if play ever does exceed a quantity, that becomes a finding
for ground-game — "your component count and your rules disagree" — and
they decide. Which is a real question: a physical game cannot hand out a
seventh Protection token, so either the rules bound it or the box does.
Not registered as a finding today, because nothing was found. A stated "none found" is registered instead, because a survey that reports nothing and leaves no trace is indistinguishable from one that was never run.
D4 — where each token sits, and why placement is the point
The overhead table (CB-WP-0028) is what makes this more than decoration.
| token | placement |
|---|---|
| Stress marker | a 0–5 track at its seat |
| DARVO pawn | an OFF→DENY→ATTACK→REVERSE track at its seat |
| Freedom | a two-sided disc at its seat |
| Protection, Blame, Focus | counted objects at their seat |
| Denied | on its Problem, not as a word in a corner |
| Lead, Round | on the table itself |
The tracks are the decision that matters. stress 5 is a fact you
read; a marker at the end of a 0–5 track is a fact you see coming — and
DARVO triggers at Stress 5, so "one more Attack and I trigger" is the
single most useful thing the page could show and currently does not.
Consequences
editions/ground-darvo-r0/Tokens.csv+ digest;edition-checkcovers it automatically, since it enumerates what is present.edition.rsgains atokens()reader over the existingTable.- The renderer draws tracks and counted objects;
games_groundis unchanged. - The supply check is committed and runnable, and its result is in the register as a stated negative.
What was rejected
| rejected | why |
|---|---|
a Token type in the aggregate |
a second source of truth for Stress; INTENT forbids it |
enforcing quantity |
a limit the rules do not state is not a rule (CB-WP-0023, inverted) |
| importing only some columns | a second decision every time a column becomes interesting |
| leaving the supply unchecked | "probably safe" is not an answer, and a negative that leaves no trace cannot be told from an unrun survey |
| keeping Stress as a number | the track is what makes DARVO visible before it fires |