tegwick
82fdb85173
COMMON PROBLEM was the only scoring mode with no scenario — implemented since CB-WP-0001, referenced by nothing, and would not have failed if deleted. Five players, where the threshold is reachable at all: every Problem claimed for a total of 10 against 9, and the winner is decided by Blame rather than by claimed value — P4 claimed the highest Problem and loses to P3 because two Blame tokens sit in front of them. No defect was found on the first execution of that path, which is worth saying plainly rather than implying the scenario was hard-won. The assertions were mutation-checked three ways instead of trusted, because a dot-path expectation that silently fails to resolve would report PASS: a wrong personal score, a wrong mastery, and removing the Blame from the fixture each turn it red. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.4 KiB
| id | kind | title | status | state_hub_workstream_id |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CB-WP-0010 | product | Close the open ends before stage 1 | in_progress | 071a2da8-cb95-4dda-a711-7173434bdc3c |
Purpose
Tier S (structural S — fixes and one scenario, no capability port, no canonical interface, no dependency; chaos d4=1, no override; declaration 5 of 12). One provenance paragraph per commit, no survey, no ADR.
Four items were carried out of CB-WP-0008 and CB-WP-0009 as open. Three
are cheap and closing them costs less than carrying them into a tier-L
stage-1 pass, where they would compete for attention with new work.
CB-EV-0008 §4 also says the
next pass should be product — the meta budget reads 45% of the trailing
three against a soft 25%, and this pass is how it comes back down.
Task: close CB-WP-0007
id: CB-WP-0010-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "88bafc24-eeac-4aa0-9c40-f15307dee120"
CB-WP-0007 sits at 2/6 with T05 and T06 todo. Both were overtaken:
- T05 (control loop for the session-shape pass) was answered by CB-EV-0008 §1 and §4, which measured the windowed metric and the budget firing on real passes.
- T06 asked whether there is a fourth way a number can fail to bind. There is, and it is on record: CB-EV-0007 §3 found one aggregated over a window that cannot move it — reintroduced two tasks after the same defect was fixed for session shape.
Cancel both with pointers and mark the workplan done. A workplan left
in_progress forever makes make status name a stale next task, which
is what it has been doing for two passes.
Task: GR-E03 gets a scenario
id: CB-WP-0010-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "89355b0a-9fc7-4d69-a27e-d3c94ff0730f"
CB-EV-0007 §1: COMMON PROBLEM (GR-E03) is implemented, referenced by no test, and would not fail if deleted. GR-E02 and GR-E04 both have scenarios; this is the only scoring mode with none.
Deliver scenarios/ground/gr-e03-common-problem.yaml: the group meets the
threshold, personal scores are claimed value −1 per Blame held, and the
highest personal score wins. Use the 5-player preset, where the threshold
is actually reachable (10 available against 9).
Finding a defect here is the likely outcome and is the point — this is the first execution of that code path.
Done 2026-08-02. gr-e03-common-problem.yaml passes, and no
defect was found — GR-E03 scored correctly on its first execution.
The assertions were mutation-checked three ways rather than trusted:
a wrong personal score, a wrong mastery, and removing the Blame from
the fixture each turn it red. Every scoring mode now has a scenario.
Task: record CommitWindow's second failed use
id: CB-WP-0010-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "1da2c1de-e098-440e-8cff-7c30817d1d2b"
CommitWindow is PROVISIONAL with a delete-by of 2026-12-31, on the
condition "delete it if no second game uses it". CB-WP-0008 was its
best chance at a second consumer and did not take it — the bots and the
CLI drive GROUND's inline implementation.
Do not delete it early. The stated condition is a second game, and no second game has been attempted, so the test has not run. Record the evidence at the type so the December decision is already argued, and leave the date alone. Moving a delete-by date on the strength of a test that was never run is exactly the retarget InnerLoop §Step 4 forbids.