tegwick
abd62c5567
The AM-1 coverage gate failed the build on GR-P05 being uncovered, which is what showed the rule was in the offer layer rather than in validate. A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for clients that ask what is legal. The gate did not catch a bug, it caught a design error. And the reported case was not the one reported. CB-WP-0018, CB-EV-0016 and the message to ground-game all described SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem; validate already rejected face-down, so it never was. Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal, so the three inert SOLVEs were the HAND case. The ruling covers both so nothing is invalidated, but a ruling was requested on a wrong description -- the second time in three passes that a premise reached ground-game unchecked, after the '12 points available' that voided GR-E01. Two of two. The pattern is not careless analysis; it is that a claim gets SENT the moment it is interesting and checked afterwards. Unexecuted verification, one step further out: not a belief acted on, but a belief published. CB-WP-0022's reproduction rule would have caught both. An earlier mutation run reported three survivors and was wrong -- the replacement strings did not match, so nothing was mutated. It proved nothing and looked like a result. Also renames CB-WP-0022-T06B to T07; the hub flagged it as an unregistered species. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
113 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
5 KiB
Markdown
# CB-EV-0020 — a gate moved the rule, and the report was wrong
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0023 T03. Measured 2026-08-04 at `46c2fb6`+. Pass kind `product`,
|
|
tier **S** (chaos d8 = 6, no override). Declaration 6 of chaos window 2.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 1. How long the inert move survived, and what it cost
|
|
|
|
SOLVE has been offered where it could do nothing **since `legal_commands`
|
|
was written** — nineteen passes. It cost one maintainer three consecutive
|
|
rounds of a real game, playing the same move and watching nothing happen,
|
|
with no explanation on the page.
|
|
|
|
It was not found by a test. It was found by a person playing, and then
|
|
only because they said so.
|
|
|
|
## 2. The rule ended up somewhere other than where I put it
|
|
|
|
I implemented the ruling in `legal_commands` — the **offer** layer — and
|
|
it worked: SOLVE stopped being offered, four conditions, four tests.
|
|
|
|
Then the **AM-1 coverage gate failed the build**: 58/59, `GR-P05`
|
|
uncovered. Scenarios are what cover a rule, and scenarios drive
|
|
`validate`, not the offer layer.
|
|
|
|
That is what showed the rule was in the wrong place. **A rule enforced
|
|
only by the offer is enforced only for clients that ask what is legal.**
|
|
The browser would have been filtered; a scenario file, a bot, or any
|
|
future client that constructs a command directly would have walked
|
|
straight past it.
|
|
|
|
Once GR-P05 moved into `validate`, every condition in `legal_commands`
|
|
was dead code — and the layering test I had written for a different
|
|
reason said so in exactly those words: *"validate now rejects claimed —
|
|
drop the filter."* The offer layer is back to one arm for Investigate and
|
|
SOLVE together, and it gets the rule for free because it filters
|
|
candidates through `validate` anyway.
|
|
|
|
**The gate did not catch a bug. It caught a design error**, which is a
|
|
better return than it was built for.
|
|
|
|
## 3. The reported case was not the one I reported
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0018, CB-EV-0016 and **the message to ground-game** all described
|
|
the defect as *SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem*.
|
|
|
|
Measured: **`validate` already rejected face-down.** It never was offered.
|
|
|
|
Problem 1 is the Surface Problem and is face-up from the deal (GR-S01), so
|
|
the maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the **hand** case — holding no
|
|
Clarify for a Clarify Problem. I inferred "face-down" from the play report
|
|
without checking which condition was actually blocking, and then told the
|
|
game's designer.
|
|
|
|
The ruling covers both sub-cases, so nothing it says is invalidated and no
|
|
re-ruling is needed. **But a ruling was requested on the strength of a
|
|
description that was wrong**, and this is the second time in three passes
|
|
that a premise I supplied reached ground-game unchecked — the first being
|
|
the *"12 points available"* that voided GR-E01.
|
|
|
|
Two of two. The pattern is not that the analysis is careless; it is that
|
|
**a claim gets sent the moment it is interesting, and checked afterwards.**
|
|
That is the same shape as *unexecuted verification*, one step further out:
|
|
not an unverified belief acted on, but an unverified belief **published**.
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0022's *"no finding without its reproduction"* rule would have
|
|
caught both. GD-0001 already carries its reproduction; this pass is the
|
|
argument for making that the standard rather than the exception.
|
|
|
|
## 4. What the four conditions cost to prove
|
|
|
|
Each is asserted on its own, because a single *"SOLVE is filtered"* test
|
|
passes with three of four implemented and nobody learns which.
|
|
|
|
| mutation | result |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| drop the claimed check | `solve_is_not_offered_on_an_already_claimed_problem` red |
|
|
| drop the hand check | `solve_is_not_offered_without_a_matching_solution_in_hand` red |
|
|
| invert the layering assertion | `validate_enforces_all_four_solve_conditions` red |
|
|
|
|
An earlier mutation run reported **three survivors** and was wrong: the
|
|
replacement strings did not match the source, so nothing was mutated. The
|
|
run proved nothing and looked like a result — the harness-does-nothing
|
|
class, in my own hands, caught only by checking that the file changed.
|
|
|
|
**No scenario encoded the bug.** All 25 passed unchanged; the 26th covers
|
|
GR-P05.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Cost
|
|
|
|
| pass | kind | responses | cost | $/response |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| **CB-WP-0022** | product | *in flight — T01 only* | | |
|
|
| **CB-WP-0021** | product | 12 | **$5.06** | 0.422 |
|
|
| CB-WP-0023 | product | *provisional — not quoted* | | |
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0022 is still `active` and cannot be quoted as settled; CB-WP-0021
|
|
is `ready` with its declaration and correction committed and no
|
|
implementation, which is what $5.06 buys. Read by re-running `make status`
|
|
at the moment of writing.
|
|
|
|
## 6. Open
|
|
|
|
- **CB-WP-0021 (the edition import) is unstarted and now partly
|
|
redundant**: GR-P05's suit check makes the *stand-in's* cycled suits
|
|
load-bearing, so importing real `required_solution` values changes which
|
|
Problems each hand can solve. It should be re-read before it is run.
|
|
- **CB-WP-0022 T02 (adversarial review) is next**, and §3 has just handed
|
|
it a second data point.
|
|
- **GROUND-WP-0004** — GR-E01's ruling reopened on corrected numbers, with
|
|
the maintainer's unwinnable 3-player games as evidence.
|
|
- **Chaos: 6 of 12 in window 2**, one override, changed nothing.
|