tegwick
6be9fbc9af
ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
7.1 KiB
The finding register
Design findings about GROUND, with their reproductions. Governed by
GameDesign.md (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
and ADR-0012. 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; 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. Reported by
make design.
| 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 |
- 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:validatealready 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."
2da19a4measured 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). - F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end. Nineteen passes, never
played out.
noteuntil 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.