tegwick
da58e78e4a
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Three FATAL, five SERIOUS. The substance of round 1's corrections held — Reactive is genuinely one arm different, the five replacement controls are non-inert, the inert metric is right, the numbers reproduce. What failed were the CLAIMS about them, and two defects the corrections introduced. FATAL 1: the fix for round 1's #11 did not fix it. The assertion was `games + setup_fails == 200`, and a refused setup increments setup_fails while skipping games — so the sum is invariant under exactly the failure it claimed to catch. Injecting setup failures gave exit 0 over 196-game columns. Now asserts games == GAMES, verified to exit 101. FATAL 2: the correction to the selective-column FATAL was itself selective. "81-1000 per cell, baseline AND H1" and "31-1000" twelve lines apart, both taken from the baseline row; under H1 rank-75 arms are 59/0/0/0. Every cell is now printed rather than summarised, and the corrected verdict is the opposite of the one it replaced: under rank-75, H1 REDUCES DARVO arms to zero at 3p and above. FATAL 3: "DARVO arms 2 per seat per game" is 1 per seat per game, exactly, at every band. SERIOUS: the tiebreak oracle asserted only that the winner set CHANGED, so reversing the tiebreak left it green; the #13 defect's impact was claimed and never measured (72,000 games: zero divergences — real in principle, witnessed only by a constructed board); a 29-of-363 citation pointed at a file that did not contain it (round 1's reviewer did report it, and it was never transcribed — the record was wrong, not the number); the harnesses were run by NO GATE, so every published figure came from a manual run of an ungated binary, including the assertion added for #1; and edition-check's sibling handling — added by the last correction — was self-certifying, crashed instead of failing, and counted Markdown lines as coverage. Now discovered on disk, and it found a real gap on its first run: Rules_Text.csv vendored with no digest. Also: "peak Stress held" was dead code kept quiet by `let _ = held;` — the numbers were right by coincidence. make panels is now a registered gate. Round 3 is owed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
138 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
138 lines
6.6 KiB
Markdown
# CB-EV-0030 — H1 measured
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0038. Tier L (structural L; **chaos d8 = 8 → override, redraw = L**
|
||
— the override changed nothing). **Declaration 10 of chaos window 3, and
|
||
the window's first 8.** Closed 2026-08-08.
|
||
|
||
> **This evidence has not had its tier-L adversarial review** (InnerLoop
|
||
> Step 2). **It may not go to `ground-game` until it has.** It is a
|
||
> measurement of another repo's design hypothesis, which is precisely the
|
||
> case the review exists for.
|
||
|
||
**Delivered:** variant selection in the kernel, H1-A and H1-B implemented
|
||
from `rules_delta.yaml`, ground-game's `unchanged:` list asserted rather
|
||
than trusted, and the ATTACK panel re-run for both rule sets.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. The result, against their own criteria
|
||
|
||
`ground-game`'s success criteria (design note §3.2), answered one by one.
|
||
**Three of four fail.**
|
||
|
||
> **CORRECTED TWICE.** Round 1 found criteria 1 and 2 rendered as flat
|
||
> failures **on the greedy column alone**, while this pass's own harness
|
||
> printed non-zero DARVO arms in the rank-75 and rank-95 columns — the
|
||
> selective-column move, in the file that names it.
|
||
>
|
||
> **Round 2 found the correction was itself selective, and its numbers
|
||
> wrong** ([`CB-REV-0002`](../reviews/CB-REV-0002-h1.md) #2): it quoted
|
||
> "81–1000 per cell … baseline *and* H1" and, twelve lines away,
|
||
> "31–1000". Both ranges came from the **baseline** rank-75 row. Under
|
||
> **H1**, rank-75 arms are `2p 59, 3p 0, 4p 0, 6p 0` — three cells at zero
|
||
> and the fourth below the stated floor.
|
||
>
|
||
> **Every cell is now given**, because two attempts at summarising this
|
||
> into a range have now produced three wrong numbers.
|
||
|
||
**DARVO arms per 200-game cell, SHARED GROUND** (all three modes agree on
|
||
arms; they differ only in who wins):
|
||
|
||
| | greedy | rank-75 | rank-95 |
|
||
|---|---:|---:|---:|
|
||
| **baseline** 2p / 3p / 4p / 6p | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 | 81 / 125 / 218 / 31 | 400 / 805 / 1000 / 1000 |
|
||
| **H1** 2p / 3p / 4p / 6p | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 | **59 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 600 / 870 / 941 / 970 |
|
||
|
||
| # | criterion | verdict |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial, "not 0/500" | **depends entirely on the policy, and H1 does not improve it for the middle one.** Zero under greedy in both. Under rank-75, H1 **reduces** arms to zero at 3p and above. Only rank-95 — a seat that always attacks — arms freely, and it does so **under the baseline too** |
|
||
| 2 | ATTACK selection rises for some subpopulation | **no, for the policy the criterion is about.** Greedy attacks 0 times under both. rank-75's attacks fall 604 → 180 at 2p and **592/923/389 → 0** at 3p/4p/6p. Only the deliberately unregulated seat of CB-EV-0031 rises, and it never wins |
|
||
| 3 | group success does not collapse | **fails hardest** — greedy's wins go **165 → 0** (3p), **190 → 0** (4p), **200 → 0** (6p) |
|
||
| 4 | Bond/GROUND stay better than DARVO | holds, but **vacuously**: DARVO never fires |
|
||
|
||
SHARED GROUND, greedy column, 200 games per cell:
|
||
|
||
| seats | baseline won | H1 won |
|
||
|---|---:|---:|
|
||
| 2p | 132 | **68** |
|
||
| 3p | 165 | **0** |
|
||
| 4p | 190 | **0** |
|
||
| 6p | 200 | **0** |
|
||
|
||
## 2. Why — and the mechanism is not the one H1 assumed
|
||
|
||
H1-A was meant to raise Stress toward the DARVO arm at 5. **It does not
|
||
get there under competent play.** One 3-player game, seed 1:
|
||
|
||
| | rounds | final Stress | Problems unclaimed | DARVO armed | outcome |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| baseline | 5 | 0, 1, 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 of 7 — **success** |
|
||
| H1 | 5 | 3, 3, 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 of 7 — **failure** |
|
||
|
||
**Greedy spends its actions on Stress instead of Problems.** The pressure
|
||
is answered by regulating, so Stress plateaus around 3 — below the gate at
|
||
4 and well below the arm at 5 — while two Problems go unclaimed and the
|
||
total lands under the threshold.
|
||
|
||
**So H1-A behaves as a solve-rate tax, not as DARVO pressure.** And since
|
||
Stress never reaches 4, **H1-B never fires at all under competent play**:
|
||
the self-soothe is unreachable by the policy it was designed to tempt.
|
||
|
||
**The seat-count pattern is the tell.** At 2p — three Problems, so a table
|
||
can clear the board — H1 *helps* in SHARED (132 → 68 is a fall, but 2p is
|
||
the only band that still wins at all). At 3p and above the board is bigger
|
||
than the pressure allows a table to clear, and success goes to zero. The
|
||
tax scales with the number of Problems; the intended effect does not.
|
||
|
||
## 3. The harness defect caught before the claim
|
||
|
||
The first run showed `won`, `atk` and `darvo` **all exactly 0** at 3+
|
||
seats. That is the signature of games being *discarded*, not lost.
|
||
|
||
`sweep` had `let Ok(g) = play(st, &mut ps) else { continue };` and **never
|
||
reported its game count**, so a run in which nothing played and a run in
|
||
which nothing won were the same output.
|
||
|
||
> **Reporting "H1 makes the game unwinnable" when the truth might have
|
||
> been "our harness threw every H1 game away" would have been the
|
||
> ADR-0018 family — aimed, this time, at another repository's design
|
||
> decision.**
|
||
|
||
Instrumented: setup failures counted, `play` errors captured and printed,
|
||
`games != 200` reported. **All 200 ran in every cell.** The zeros are
|
||
real, and now they are known to be real.
|
||
|
||
## 4. What this evidence does not say
|
||
|
||
- **It does not say H1 is a bad idea.** It says these two deltas, at these
|
||
magnitudes, measured by this panel, do not do what §3.2 asks. Their §6
|
||
already has the branch for it: *"H1 measured | DARVO still ~0 | add Idea
|
||
2 last-place stress (semi only) as H2"*.
|
||
- **The panel is greedy-family throughout** — greedy, and greedy with
|
||
ATTACK reranked to 75 and 95. Plural, per RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1,
|
||
but not diverse. A policy that *manages Stress badly* would reach 5 and
|
||
arm DARVO, and none of these do. **That is the obvious next measurement
|
||
and it has not been run.**
|
||
- **No felt-play.** GROUND-WP-0003 T01–T05 runs human tables separately,
|
||
and 200-game aggregates cannot say what a table feels like.
|
||
|
||
## 5. A tuning direction, offered as a question and not a finding
|
||
|
||
If the aim is Stress reaching 5 sometimes, the tax must outrun regulation.
|
||
Candidates, none measured: pressure scaling with the *number* of unclaimed
|
||
Problems rather than a flat +1; applying it only above a Round threshold;
|
||
or lowering the DARVO arm below 5. **Each is a rules change and therefore
|
||
ground-game's to make, not ours to propose as a fix.**
|
||
|
||
## 6. Cost
|
||
|
||
`make cost`, not inlined. One vendored catalog and one experiment package;
|
||
no new dependency.
|
||
|
||
## Open after this pass
|
||
|
||
- **The tier-L adversarial review**, before any of this travels.
|
||
- **A policy that regulates badly**, which is the measurement §4 names.
|
||
- **H1-B has never been observed firing** in a real game — only in a unit
|
||
test. A delta that competent play cannot reach is untested where it
|
||
matters.
|