tegwick
7ed9fc730a
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
T06. games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs, make difficulty, wired into make self-tests, and a report file in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0005 with a hub message pointing at it. THE REPORT OPENS WITH THE RETRACTION, because what this task was written to send was withdrawn by T02 and GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly that number. They are told, in the first section, that we nearly sent them "the game is too easy at 5-6 seats" and why it was wrong. seats winnable greedy random first-legal spread 2p 60% 60.0% 5.0% 76.7% 71.7 3p 93% 88.3% 6.7% 25.0% 81.7 4p 100% 93.3% 6.7% 30.0% 86.7 5p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 6p 100% 100.0% 3.3% 0.0% 100.0 SPREAD justifies the whole redesign: 71.7 to 100.0 points between three trivial policies. The table now shows why no single rate is a difficulty rather than asserting it. And the 5-6 rows point the OPPOSITE way from the withdrawn claim -- first-legal 0% against greedy 100% is the widest spread in the table, which suggests play matters MORE there, not less. Neither reading is established and the report says so. The confound is stated in the tool's own output, not only in prose: `winnable` is conditioned on greedy's play up to the final round, because searching from round 1 is unaffordable. Presenting it as a property of the deal would repeat this pass's error in a subtler form -- which is exactly how a corrected project reintroduces a defect. NO THRESHOLD CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. The instrument can fail (spec §5): a witness must replay to a win, an unwinnable position must report searched-out rather than a budget cut, a one-node budget must not claim exhaustion, and the policy panel must actually disagree. difficulty-baseline.rs marked superseded, kept as the survey's dated snapshot. Registered as F16, inconsistent / withdrawn. T07. evidence/CB-EV-0024. Five of nine defects came only from the review; four from execution, and all four of those were in work written after it. The wrong-denominator family now has five instances and still no control -- facts-check catches copies that disagree, nothing catches a number computed correctly against the wrong base. Tier L was an over-declaration (no port, structurally M) and paid for itself anyway, because the review is L-only. Chaos window 2 will close with zero overrides, making its retirement condition untestable. Named as open rather than implied done: the witness is NOT wired to the ending page. The search works; the browser cannot ask it yet. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
159 lines
8.6 KiB
Markdown
159 lines
8.6 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 |
|
||
| F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 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).
|
||
- **F16 — "the game is too easy at 5–6 seats", withdrawn the day it was
|
||
raised.** Claimed from `GreedyPolicy` winning 200/200 at those seat
|
||
counts. A `FirstLegal` policy scores **0%** on the identical deals, and
|
||
at two seats it *beats* greedy — two unsophisticated agents span the
|
||
whole range, so the measurement was about the policy. Caught by the
|
||
CB-WP-0025 adversarial review (C4) **before transmission**; it would
|
||
have been the fifth wrong premise sent to ground-game and the worst,
|
||
since GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly this number. The withdrawal
|
||
was reported (ADR-0012 D5). Its reproduction is `difficulty.rs`, whose
|
||
policy panel is plural *because of this finding*.
|
||
- **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.
|
||
|