tegwick
a733826d95
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
T03: input::describe writes a sentence per legal command; data-descs carries them in step with data-targets; the ghost already following the pointer shows the one for whatever legal target is under it, so the explanation lands beside the target with no overlay layer to keep aligned. ADR-0010 D1 binds -- the page renders it, never composes it. Both mutations INITIALLY SURVIVED because the fixture's Attack card had exactly one target, where an off-by-one shift and a truncation are both no-ops. CB-EV-0014's lesson one level in: a fixture too thin to express a failure is how the failure survives. Two attack targets now, both red. T04: chaos rate d4 -> d8, window 2 open at 12 declarations, retiring if an override changes nothing twice running. Window 1's condition was NOT met -- both overrides changed the outcome -- so the mechanism is kept. The weakest part of the decision is that it is a rate change argued from n=2, so window 2 carries a falsifier: no override at all is evidence the rate went too far, not that the mechanism is healthy. InnerLoop.md hit 401 lines and the loadability gate fired; the rationale moved to InnerLoopReference.md, structurally, per the standing precedent that limits are not raised. CB-WP-0017 settled at $9.48/40 against $5.19/23 reported mid-flight, 83% higher. Six for six, always low -- read by re-running the instrument at the moment of quoting, which is CB-EV-0015's correction applied for the first time. make all exits 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
182 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
182 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
# CB-EV-0016 — the browser is a client, and window 1's verdict
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0018 T04. Measured 2026-08-03 at `e8bb726`+. Pass kind `product`,
|
||
tier **M** (structural M — changes the loop's own constraints; chaos d4=3,
|
||
no override). **Declaration 1 of chaos window 2**, opened by this pass.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. A finished game was indistinguishable from a crash
|
||
|
||
Reported: *"after some time i get an empty page back. I guess the game
|
||
crashes or ends but that is unclear as the ui disappears."*
|
||
|
||
Reproduced before touching anything, by driving a real game to completion
|
||
over HTTP:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
move 5 accepted → ok
|
||
GET / → [Errno 111] Connection refused
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
The game had **ended normally** — 5 rounds, 30 commands — and its entire
|
||
result went to a terminal nobody was reading. `next_choice` only accepts
|
||
connections *inside* a human decision point, so when `play()` returned the
|
||
listener died and the page's post-`ok` reload was refused.
|
||
|
||
**The browser was a second-class client.** The outcome, the scores, the
|
||
winners, and every error `run_game` can return were invisible to the only
|
||
interface a player uses. Now: an 8,998-byte page reading *"GROUND — game
|
||
over … 30 commands, hash f6c890a65271"*, with the final table and the log.
|
||
|
||
It serves until the page posts `done` — the ending carries a *"close — I
|
||
have read this"* control — with a 600 s linger, because a server that
|
||
never exits is its own defect and a timeout would race a player reading
|
||
the result.
|
||
|
||
## 2. The control had to be built twice, and the first was worthless
|
||
|
||
`the_end_of_the_game_reaches_the_browser` calls `serve_end` directly. It
|
||
passes. **Deleting the call from `run_game` left it green.**
|
||
|
||
That is CB-EV-0012's finding recurring almost verbatim — *"every link was
|
||
tested and the chain was not"* — and it survived one full round of
|
||
mutation here before anyone noticed, because the mutation was run and the
|
||
verdict was read as "no coverage gap" rather than "the test is in the
|
||
wrong place".
|
||
|
||
`a_real_game_played_to_its_end_leaves_the_ending_on_screen` runs the real
|
||
`play()` with a browser seat, drives a real game to its end over a real
|
||
socket, and requires the last page to be the ending. Under the same
|
||
mutation it goes red — and its failure message prints an **empty page**,
|
||
which is precisely the symptom that was reported.
|
||
|
||
**A weak assertion of mine, caught by itself.** The first version grepped
|
||
the ending page for `location.reload`. The page reuses `SCRIPT`, whose
|
||
reload is guarded by `t.indexOf('ok') === 0`, and the ending endpoint
|
||
answers `closed` — so the grep would have forced a second script into
|
||
existence to satisfy a test rather than a requirement. That is the
|
||
source-text control shape ADR-0010 D2 demoted three passes ago, reappearing
|
||
in my own hands.
|
||
|
||
## 3. The card report, and what it actually was
|
||
|
||
Reported: *"the cards I play by pulling them on a target will not be
|
||
removed … we will need a discard pile."*
|
||
|
||
**A discard pile already existed** — `solution_discard` on `GroundState`,
|
||
`SolutionDiscarded` removing the card from the hand, and the page already
|
||
rendering `deck N remaining / discard …`. Building one would have been
|
||
building a thing that was there, and the only reason that did not happen is
|
||
that the code was read before the work started.
|
||
|
||
What was being dragged are **action** cards. The five GROUND actions are
|
||
not cards and are correctly never consumed; solution cards leave the hand
|
||
at **Resolve**, because a selection is a face-down commit.
|
||
|
||
But the report pointed at something real. Measured live:
|
||
|
||
| move | hand | discard |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 · Investigate → problem-2 | 2 cards | none |
|
||
| 2 · Investigate → problem-3 | **3 cards** | none |
|
||
| 3–5 · Solve → problem-1 | **4 cards, unchanged** | none |
|
||
|
||
Investigate draws, correctly. **Solve was played three times and did
|
||
nothing, three times, in silence** — GR-A02's resolver `continue`s when the
|
||
problem is face-down, and `legal_commands` offers Solve on every face-up
|
||
problem without consulting the hand.
|
||
|
||
**Raised for `ground-game`, not decided here** (INTENT defers game
|
||
semantics): *should SOLVE be selectable against a face-down problem, or
|
||
against a suit the seat cannot match?* A face-down commit you cannot
|
||
fulfil is a plausible bluff in a commit/reveal game with DARVO, which is
|
||
exactly why it is not this repo's call.
|
||
|
||
## 4. The log, and the limit of what it can honestly say
|
||
|
||
`bot::Journal` — `Applied { actor, command, events }` appended by the
|
||
driver through the new `play_journaled`; `play` delegates with `None`, so
|
||
nothing existing changed. `BotGame.events` is the same information but only
|
||
after `play` returns, which is no use to a page rendered mid-game.
|
||
|
||
Phrased with `record::to_step`, so *what the player reads is what the
|
||
scenario file will say*, and all 29 `GroundEvent` variants render in words
|
||
rather than `{:?}`.
|
||
|
||
**A command that produced no events says `no effect`**, and the mutation
|
||
removing that branch goes red.
|
||
|
||
**The honest limit:** the reported SOLVE case does *not* render as `no
|
||
effect`, because the SOLVE resolves inside the system's `resolve` command,
|
||
which does produce events for other seats. The player now sees the
|
||
selection and sees no claim follow it — a large improvement on silence, but
|
||
still an inference. Making it explicit would require the renderer to decide
|
||
*why* a rule did nothing, which is a second implementation of the rules and
|
||
is what this task's own control forbids. Left as an inference deliberately.
|
||
|
||
## 5. The explanation, and two mutations that a thin fixture defeated
|
||
|
||
Every advertised target now carries a sentence Rust wrote for **that pair**
|
||
(`data-descs`, in step with `data-targets`), shown at the pointer while
|
||
dragging over it. ADR-0010 D1 binds: the page renders it, never composes
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
Both mutations — showing a neighbouring pair's text, and letting targets
|
||
and descriptions fall out of step — **initially survived**, because the
|
||
test fixture's Attack card had exactly **one** target, where an off-by-one
|
||
shift and a truncation are both no-ops.
|
||
|
||
That is CB-EV-0014's lesson again, one level in: *a stub too thin to
|
||
express a failure is how the failure survives*. The fixture now offers two
|
||
attack targets on purpose, and both mutations go red.
|
||
|
||
## 6. Window 1's verdict, and a rate change on n=2
|
||
|
||
Twelve declarations, two overrides, one each way, **both changed the
|
||
outcome** — so window 1's retirement condition was not met and the
|
||
mechanism is kept. The full table is in `InnerLoopReference.md` §Chaos
|
||
roll.
|
||
|
||
**Rate dropped d4 → d8; window 2 opened at 12 declarations; new retirement
|
||
condition: retire if an override changes nothing twice running.**
|
||
|
||
**The weakest part of this pass, stated plainly: it is a rate change argued
|
||
from n=2.** The alternative — keep d4 for a second window and decide with
|
||
four points — was live, and was rejected only because a quarter of all
|
||
declarations is a large standing tax to pay for evidence. So window 2
|
||
carries a falsifier: **if it produces no override at all, that is evidence
|
||
the rate went too far**, not that the mechanism is healthy. A window that
|
||
cannot fire cannot be evaluated, which is the exact failure d10 had.
|
||
|
||
## 7. Cost
|
||
|
||
| pass | kind | responses | cost | $/response |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| CB-WP-0016 | product | 64 | $14.93 | 0.233 |
|
||
| **CB-WP-0017** | product | 40 | **$9.48** | 0.237 |
|
||
| CB-WP-0018 | product | *provisional — not quoted* | | |
|
||
|
||
Read by **re-running `make status` at the moment of writing**, which is
|
||
CB-EV-0015 §6's correction applied for the first time: quoting a figure
|
||
remembered from earlier in a session defeats the rule even when the
|
||
boundary is right. CB-WP-0017 was reported at $5.19/23 mid-flight and
|
||
settled at **$9.48/40** — 83% higher. **Six for six, always low.**
|
||
|
||
**Meta budget 0% `[ok]`**, all three trailing passes product.
|
||
|
||
## 8. Open
|
||
|
||
- **INTENT stage 1: the human check.** Three runs, three defects no test
|
||
could reach. Everything in this pass is verified by tests, mutation and a
|
||
live socket; nothing perceptual is.
|
||
- **For `ground-game`:** should SOLVE be selectable against a face-down
|
||
problem or an unmatchable suit? §3.
|
||
- **The self-quoting rule** now has both halves recorded but is still not
|
||
written into the loop spec.
|
||
- **AM-4b's scope defect (408,237 uncounted lines)** and its proc-macro
|
||
share.
|
||
- **`python3` as a toolchain dependency was never argued.**
|
||
- **AM-4a cannot survive stage 2** — 1,741,979 against 161,000.
|
||
- **ADR-0007 D3's acquisition rule** and **D5** remain unratified;
|
||
ADR-0010 rests on the latter.
|