tegwick
8d58568013
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
Four of the maintainer's five playtest remarks. Three of the five turned
out to be data the projection already carried, rendered as text -- the
table's problem was legibility, not content, and the coverage gate passes
either way because it proves nothing is OMITTED, not that anything is
readable. That gap is named in the evidence rather than closed: the honest
control is a person playing it.
T01. The ending control was two defects wearing one button. The label said
"close -- I have read this" while hotseat.rs reads `done` as STOP THE
SERVER, and acknowledging it changed nothing -- the tab kept a full table
and a `play again` pointing at a closed port. Now labelled by its effect,
and the page seals itself on the `closed` reply: removeAttribute on every
control's data-drop, so they stop being droppable by the same rule that
made them droppable. removeAttribute rather than setAttribute(_, null),
which writes the truthy string "null" in a browser.
The reason it survived is structural. jsrun's fetch stub returned
{then: function(){return this}} and never invoked its callbacks, so every
line of the script reacting to the server was unreachable from every test
in this project -- a page that ignores the server was indistinguishable
from one that acts on it. Same finding as CB-WP-0016's "a stub too thin to
express a failure is how the failure survives", one layer deeper, at the
reply. The stub now delivers a real then-chain; gesture_with_reply reports
surviving controls; the seal is mutation-proven and a negative control
asserts `ok: dealing` does NOT seal.
T02. Draw and discard as offset stacks with counts. The shuffle question
the task required settling: it already works, at
games/ground/src/lib.rs:1419-1435, implementing the U4 default that
ground-game confirmed 2026-08-03. Nothing raised. The piles show the state
before it fires, which is derivable from the view; a claim that a
reshuffle HAS happened is not, and is not made. CB-WP-0026 applied that
ruling the same day this consumed it -- first time answering "is this
underdetermined?" was one lookup instead of a message.
T03. Each seat's play drawn as a card, sentence kept beside it. The
face-down back is a const with no parameters: SelectionView::Hidden
carries nothing, so there is no data path into the back to add later. The
leak test copies view.rs's own shape -- identical backs across two
different hidden situations, THEN assert a revealed play does show,
because without the second half the first passes for a renderer that draws
nothing.
T04. MatchTally lives in `play`, beside the listener and the seed. What
"cumulative" means was decided before anything was summed, and the answer
is that GROUND defines one game and no series: summed personal score and
games-won answer different questions, and a test asserts they can point at
different seats. Both shown, both labelled. Registered F15 as a NOTE --
the test shows the tallies can differ, which is arithmetic, not evidence
the ambiguity harms play, so GameDesign §3.1 bars reporting it. First use
of the note tier since D6 wrote it, and it came from building rather than
from play.
make all: exit 0. 41 render tests, 26 cb-play tests, loop-lint clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
148 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
148 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
# The finding register
|
||
|
||
Design findings about **GROUND**, with their reproductions. Governed by
|
||
[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
|
||
and [ADR-0012](../decisions/ADR-0012-the-design-instrument.md). Reported
|
||
by `make design`.
|
||
|
||
**Split out of `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` on 2026-08-05** when that
|
||
file crossed the ~400-line loadability limit. ADR-0012 D2 said *"no new
|
||
file"* and this is a new file — but D2's substance was **one register, not
|
||
a second mechanism competing with the first**, and that holds: this *is*
|
||
§Underdetermined's register, moved, still driving off the same
|
||
`provisional`/ruling machinery. D2 also named the awkwardness this
|
||
resolves — a finding about the engine sitting in a document about the
|
||
game.
|
||
|
||
The U-items themselves, with their defaults and rulings, stay in
|
||
[`GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`](GroundRules.md); this file tracks them
|
||
*as findings*.
|
||
|
||
**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
|
||
register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
|
||
five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
|
||
kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
|
||
`make design`.
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:begin -->
|
||
|
||
| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| U1 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U2 | underdetermined | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U3 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U4 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U5 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U6 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U7 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U8 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U9 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U10 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:end -->
|
||
|
||
- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
|
||
Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
|
||
GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
|
||
rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
|
||
case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
|
||
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
|
||
- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
|
||
scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
|
||
degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
|
||
one exists.
|
||
- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
|
||
against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
|
||
against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
|
||
`-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
|
||
is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
|
||
and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
|
||
- **F15 — the rules define one game, not a series.** `OutcomeView` gives
|
||
`personal` (per seat), `group_success` (per table) and `winners`. Summing
|
||
the first and counting the third answer different questions, and GROUND
|
||
says nothing about how several games combine. CB-WP-0024 T04 shows
|
||
**both, labelled**, rather than picking one and letting it become the
|
||
score by default. `note`: no artifact demonstrates that this *harms*
|
||
play — a unit test showing the two tallies point at different seats
|
||
demonstrates only that they can differ, which is arithmetic, not a design
|
||
defect. Under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists.
|
||
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
|
||
played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
|
||
playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
|
||
recording the artifact.
|
||
|
||
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
|
||
|
||
**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
|
||
ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
|
||
already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
|
||
provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
|
||
`finished`.
|
||
|
||
CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
|
||
`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
|
||
answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
|
||
unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
|
||
|
||
**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
|
||
Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
|
||
default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
|
||
not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
|
||
that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
|
||
what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
|
||
until it is.
|
||
|
||
### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice
|
||
|
||
**One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six
|
||
of ten did.
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong
|
||
ones before checking them**:
|
||
|
||
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. |
|
||
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. |
|
||
|
||
Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on
|
||
reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this
|
||
exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what
|
||
the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game.
|
||
|
||
So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing.
|
||
**Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.**
|
||
They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came
|
||
off, not because anything demonstrates them.
|
||
|
||
### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
|
||
|
||
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
|
||
scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
|
||
it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
|
||
mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
|
||
uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
|
||
records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
|
||
|
||
**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
|
||
findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
|
||
as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
|
||
scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
|
||
their own.
|
||
|
||
**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
|
||
§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
|
||
existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
|
||
reported metric with a target of zero.
|
||
|