tegwick
d97e8e825d
GR-O01 states 2-6 players; every scenario in the corpus was 3-player. Now all five counts play to GameEnded under both policies and reproduce at the same seed, with scenarios at both boundaries and the CLI transcript run at 2p, 3p and 6p. Nothing broke — the rules are seat-count-generic. What the boundaries exposed is arithmetic: with the standard preset's placeholder Problem values (value = priority), the best total any game can reach is 3 at 2p, 6 at 3-4p, 10 at 5-6p, against GR-E01 thresholds of 5, 7 and 9. Group success is unreachable below five seats regardless of play, and no scenario noticed because none had played to scoring with everything claimed. GR-S01 calls the fixture a stand-in for scenario Problem data, so this is evidence the stand-in is not neutral, not that GR-E01 is wrong. It is pinned by a passing scenario, an arithmetic test, and a provisional marker owned by ground-game so it ages in `make coverage`. The test states its own delete-by: it is expected to fail when Problem values become real data, and that failure is the signal to delete it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
138 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
138 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# 2026-08-01 — CB-WP-0008 delivery notes
|
||
|
||
Kept out of the workplan file so it stays loadable (`loop-lint`).
|
||
|
||
## T01 — bots
|
||
|
||
`games/ground/src/bot.rs`, 8 tests. `Policy` + `RandomPolicy` (seeded
|
||
`ChaChaRng`) + `GreedyPolicy` (stated heuristic, deterministic), a
|
||
`legal_commands` generator that filters candidates through `validate`, and
|
||
a driver that reaches `GameEnded`.
|
||
|
||
Measured, 3-player, seed 42, both policies to GR-R09's fifth round:
|
||
|
||
| policy | commands | events | claimed | total vs threshold |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| random | 36 | 81 | 1 | 2 / 7 |
|
||
| greedy | 30 | 51 | 2 | 3 / 7 |
|
||
|
||
**The module is not gated on `scenarios`; its tests are.** A bot needs
|
||
only the aggregate, but the setup presets live behind that feature. That
|
||
is a real seam and it is left visible rather than papered over with a
|
||
feature the bot does not need.
|
||
|
||
### What the second consumer found
|
||
|
||
INTENT's second-use rule is why T01 was worth doing before the CLI. Three
|
||
findings, none of them fixed here, because fixing a rule from inside a bot
|
||
is exactly the invention-in-isolation the rule guards against.
|
||
|
||
1. **GR-A13 admits SOLVE against an already-claimed Problem.** The rule
|
||
names "a face-up, non-Denied Problem"; `claimed_by` is not mentioned,
|
||
so `check_targeting` accepts it and resolution then does nothing. The
|
||
action is silently wasted. Greedy hit this immediately — it spent all
|
||
fifteen selections re-solving Problem 1 and scored 1. The **policy**
|
||
now avoids it; the **rule** is untouched and this is a U-item
|
||
candidate for GroundRules.
|
||
|
||
2. **The 3-player standard fixture cannot succeed.** GR-S01 gives 3
|
||
Problems at 3–4 players, the preset values them by priority (1, 2, 3 —
|
||
maximum 6), and GR-E01 sets the 3–4p threshold at **7**.
|
||
`group_success` is therefore unreachable at 3 players regardless of
|
||
play. No scenario noticed because no scenario plays to scoring with
|
||
maximal claiming. The fixture is documented as placeholder ("Problem
|
||
content is scenario data") — so this is evidence that the placeholder
|
||
is not neutral, not that GR-E01 is wrong.
|
||
|
||
3. **K13's `Project` trait has zero implementors.** `grep` finds no
|
||
`impl Project` anywhere in the tree. T02 is its first consumer, and
|
||
the projection will be written against a trait that has never been
|
||
exercised.
|
||
|
||
### Process
|
||
|
||
The acceptance tests were mutation-checked by hand (no `mutation-check`
|
||
row — that denominator is the GameKernel acceptance table, and adding a
|
||
game-level row would move a metric by changing its question).
|
||
|
||
**The first mutation was a no-op and SURVIVED**: it changed
|
||
`apply(...)?` to `let _ = apply(...)`, which still issues the command.
|
||
Removing the `Resolve` call outright turned three tests red for their
|
||
stated reason. Third recorded instance of the weak-mutation class — the
|
||
retrospective in `260801-instrument-the-table-retrospective.md` predicted
|
||
mutation strength would stay a standing maintenance cost, and this is
|
||
that cost arriving on the next pass.
|
||
|
||
## T02 — `cb-play`
|
||
|
||
`tools/cb-play` (`make play`), 6 tests. A human seat is a `Policy` like
|
||
any bot, so the CLI adds no second driver: `HumanPolicy` renders the
|
||
projection, lists the legal commands, and reads an index or `pass`.
|
||
|
||
- **K13's first implementor** is `games/ground/src/view.rs`. Hidden:
|
||
other seats' face-down selections until Reveal, hands (count only), the
|
||
undealt deck (count only), a face-down Problem's suit and value, and
|
||
**the seed** — not secret content, but a seat holding it can compute the
|
||
deck.
|
||
- **A played session becomes an artifact.** `--record FILE` writes it as a
|
||
scenario the runner executes; `--replay DIR` writes a `.cbreplay`
|
||
bundle. `games/ground/src/record.rs` is the inverse of
|
||
`parse_command`, and its warrant is a round-trip test over every
|
||
command shape — an encoder checked against hand-written expectations
|
||
only agrees with itself.
|
||
|
||
### Two vacuous tests, caught by counting
|
||
|
||
The acceptance clause *"a seat's projection never contains another seat's
|
||
hidden selection"* passed twice while asserting nothing.
|
||
|
||
1. The first version asserted the rendered text contained `face-down` —
|
||
which it does, from **Problems**, in every game ever rendered.
|
||
2. The counted version then reported **0 inspected entries**: seats are
|
||
asked in order, so a human at P1 is always prompted before anyone has
|
||
selected and never sees a hidden selection at all.
|
||
|
||
Seating the human at **P3** exercises the rule; the test now counts what
|
||
it inspected and requires at least four. Mutating the projection
|
||
(`revealed = true`) fails it for its stated reason.
|
||
|
||
This is the same class as the AM-2 `expect` that matched passing output —
|
||
an assertion that cannot distinguish the two worlds. The remedy that
|
||
worked both times was **counting what the harness examined**, not
|
||
strengthening the predicate.
|
||
|
||
## T03 — the 2–6 player range
|
||
|
||
Every scenario in the corpus was 3-player. Now: `gr-o01-two-player`,
|
||
`gr-o01-six-player`, `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p`, plus all-bot
|
||
games at every count under both policies, each reproducing at the same
|
||
seed (K8 at the boundaries, not only in the middle), and the CLI
|
||
transcript test run at 2p, 3p and 6p.
|
||
|
||
**Nothing broke.** The rules are seat-count-generic and the range works.
|
||
What the boundaries exposed is arithmetic:
|
||
|
||
| seats | Problems | best possible total | GR-E01 threshold | group success |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | **unreachable** |
|
||
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | **unreachable** |
|
||
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | **unreachable** |
|
||
| 5 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
|
||
| 6 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
|
||
|
||
With the standard preset's placeholder values (value = priority), *no
|
||
play at all* can clear the threshold below five seats. GR-S01 calls the
|
||
fixture a stand-in for scenario Problem data, so this is evidence the
|
||
stand-in is not neutral — not that GR-E01 is wrong. It is pinned three
|
||
ways: a scenario that passes on the fact, a test that asserts the
|
||
arithmetic, and a `provisional` marker with `ground-game` as owner so it
|
||
ages in `make coverage` (now 6 provisional defaults).
|
||
|
||
The test carries its own delete-by condition: **it is expected to fail**
|
||
when Problem values become scenario data, and that failure is the signal
|
||
to delete it rather than re-tune it.
|
||
|
||
Two smaller notes, recorded and not acted on: at 2 players GR-L01's
|
||
second relation slot can never be used (there is only one possible
|
||
partner), and a human at P1 is always prompted before any other seat has
|
||
selected, so the seat order makes P1 a weaker test position than P3.
|