tegwick
2806b3acb7
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
T02 — all chance derives from one root seed. Three chance points, all reading it: the setup deck shuffle, the setup Lead draw, and the reshuffle permutation. The Problems deal is not chance at all. So in extensive-form terms the tree has a single chance node at the root. That test was wrong first, and the mutation caught it. It compared state hashes — and GroundState carries `seed` as a field, so "different seeds differ" was true by construction. Mutating the shuffle away left it green. It now compares the dealt configuration, and the same mutation fails it: a wrong-subject error inside the control written for T02. The reshuffle is a pure function of (seed, round) because K5 requires deterministic replay, where a real table reshuffles independently. That is a modelling restriction, not a defect, and it is now pinned. T03 — commit/reveal checked in both directions: before Reveal each seat sees its own selection and no other; after Reveal the information sets merge, because an encoding that hides forever is not commit/reveal either. T04 — ADR-0020 refuses the EFG port, and the blocker is T02 rather than T01, which inverts what the workplan expected. Perfect recall looked like the risk and is a constraint with a known answer: key on observation histories. Making chance explicit is the expensive one — the reshuffle would become a real chance node and break the K5 purity that every recording, replay bundle and trial-note hash depends on. A port would trade the property this project is built on for one it has never needed. Track B's first move is therefore a question, not a build: take "is exploitability meaningful for a co-operative game with a shared threshold" to OpenSpiel on a toy model, where answering it costs nothing. D4 states what being wrong looks like — OpenSpiel settling on a toy what three rounds of policy sweeps could not — and makes watching for it the next action. Taxonomy §4.1 records the EFG correspondence with the test that checks each row, so a later pass starts from a specification rather than a memory. Chaos window 4 at three declarations. Window 3's verdict is now two windows behind and should be evaluated rather than restated. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md | ||
| CB-WP-0002-cost-accounting.md | ||
| CB-WP-0003-loop-hardening.md | ||
| CB-WP-0004-mechanical-work.md | ||
| CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md | ||
| CB-WP-0006-instrument-the-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0007-session-shape.md | ||
| CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md | ||
| CB-WP-0009-adaptive-gates.md | ||
| CB-WP-0010-consolidation.md | ||
| CB-WP-0011-inspectable-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0012-render-port.md | ||
| CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md | ||
| CB-WP-0014-execute-the-javascript.md | ||
| CB-WP-0015-the-inert-clauses.md | ||
| CB-WP-0016-the-drop-target.md | ||
| CB-WP-0017-legible-interaction.md | ||
| CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md | ||
| CB-WP-0019-the-am4-family.md | ||
| CB-WP-0020-the-table-you-can-read.md | ||
| CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md | ||
| CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md | ||
| CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md | ||
| CB-WP-0024-the-table-you-can-watch.md | ||
| CB-WP-0025-could-we-have-won.md | ||
| CB-WP-0026-collect-the-rulings.md | ||
| CB-WP-0027-the-commentary-track.md | ||
| CB-WP-0028-the-table-you-sit-at.md | ||
| CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md | ||
| CB-WP-0031-the-comment-box-outlives-the-game.md | ||
| CB-WP-0032-the-comments-in-the-account.md | ||
| CB-WP-0033-a-game-is-the-unit.md | ||
| CB-WP-0034-who-you-are-bonding-with.md | ||
| CB-WP-0035-a-session-that-answers-nothing.md | ||
| CB-WP-0036-interactive-mode.md | ||
| CB-WP-0037-the-fourteen-unread-files.md | ||
| CB-WP-0038-h1-variant.md | ||
| CB-WP-0039-a-seat-that-does-not-regulate.md | ||
| CB-WP-0040-what-a-statement-is-about.md | ||
| CB-WP-0041-the-extensive-form-foundation.md | ||
| CB-WP-0042-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md | ||