ci / check (push) Failing after 4s

Details

CB-WP-0042 T05: H2 measured — it largely succeeds where H1 failed

Measured against ground-game's own §3 criteria, read from their design
note rather than reused from H1.

Criterion 1 met with room: greedy SHARED wins 120 at 3p and 175 at 4p,
against H1's 0 and 0, restoring 73% and 92% of baseline.

Criterion 3 met, and it was H1's clearest failure. Under H1 the
unregulated seat armed DARVO constantly and never won; under H2 it arms
and wins 13/13/57. "Non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins" is
exactly the shape H1 could not produce.

Criterion 2 met at 2p/4p/6p and missed at 3p — 1.50 against baseline's
1.57 — reported as a miss because that is what this sample says. The
mechanism is visible: H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+, because a flat
tax on every seat creates no variance at all. That is the clearest
statement of why scoping was the right correction.

Criterion 5 is the best evidence in the pass. Forcing every scope to
global and changing nothing else reproduces H1's collapse exactly — 120 to
0 at 3p, 175 to 0 at 4p — so the scoping is what saves it, not any other
difference between the packages.

Criterion 4 came out backwards and the prediction held. The workplan said
this panel might be unable to test it, because no policy here models
another seat or knows what a scope is; bond claim rates are LOWER than
personal at 3p and 4p, driven by suit availability rather than incentive.
Reported as untested with an incidental figure pointing the wrong way,
not as a refutation.

Wired into make panels. First pass declared after ADR-0021, so no chaos
roll is recorded.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-08-08 16:09:16 +02:00

4.9 KiB

Raw Blame History

CB-EV-0032 — H2 measured

CB-WP-0042 T05. Tier M. Closed 2026-08-08. The first pass declared after the chaos roll was retired (ADR-0021), so there is no roll to record.

Delivered: H2 implemented from rules_delta.yaml, measured against ground-game's own §3 criteria — read from their design note, not reused from H1 — and a control that isolates the mechanism.

1. Their criteria, answered

#	criterion	verdict
1	greedy SHARED 3–4p well above H1's 0	met, strongly
2	Stress variance above baseline and H1-greedy	met at 2p/4p/6p, marginally missed at 3p
3	DARVO non-zero for a policy that still sometimes wins	met — and this was H1's clearest failure
4	bond cards show elevated SOLVE rate vs personal	not met, and this panel cannot test it (§3)
5	control: force all scopes global → H1-like collapse	met, decisively

2. The numbers

SHARED GROUND, 200 games per cell. spread is the mean max−min final Stress across seats — their criterion 2.

greedy

seats	baseline won / spread	H1 won / spread	H2 won / spread
2p	132 / 0.05	68 / 0.34	87 / 0.47
3p	165 / 1.57	0 / 0.00	120 / 1.50
4p	190 / 1.83	0 / 0.00	175 / 2.40
6p	200 / 1.55	0 / 0.00	199 / 2.02

reactive — DARVO arms in brackets

seats	H1 won (arms)	H2 won (arms)
2p	66 (363)	61 (346)
3p	0 (600)	13 (499)
4p	0 (800)	13 (470)
6p	0 (1200)	57 (565)

Criterion 1 is met with room. H2 restores 73% of baseline wins at 3p and 92% at 4p, where H1 destroyed them entirely.

Criterion 3 is the one that matters most. Under H1 the unregulated seat armed DARVO constantly and never won; under H2 it arms and wins 13/13/57. "Non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins" is exactly the shape H1 could not produce.

Criterion 2, honestly. H2's spread beats baseline at 2p, 4p and 6p and misses at 3p — 1.50 against 1.57. It beats H1-greedy everywhere, and H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+: a flat tax on every seat creates no variance at all, which is the clearest statement of why scoping was the right correction.

3. Criterion 4 — the number is lower, and the number cannot mean what

the criterion asks

Claim rate by scope, H2, greedy:

seats	global	personal	bond
2p	70.5%	54.5%	— (no bond card, as designed)
3p	85.5%	80.2%	60.0%
4p	99.0%	98.5%	87.5%
6p	100%	95.3%	99.5%

Bond is lower than personal at 3p and 4p — the opposite direction.

And this panel cannot test the hypothesis. The claim is that a shared tick makes a Bond network jointly motivated to clear that card. No policy here models another seat, or knows what a scope is. Greedy picks SOLVE on suit availability. So the bond rate is driven by which cards happen to be matchable, not by incentive — the mechanism the criterion is about could not have shown up.

This was stated in the workplan before the run, not discovered in the numbers. The honest report is: criterion 4 is untested, and the incidental figure points the wrong way. A table can answer it; this cannot.

4. Criterion 5 — the control isolates the mechanism

Force every scope to global and change nothing else:

seats	H2 scoped	H2, all scopes global
3p	120	0
4p	175	0

H1's collapse returns exactly. That is a strong causal statement and the best evidence in this file: the scoping is what saves it, not any other difference between the packages. Their optional A/B was worth running.

5. What this does not say

No felt-play. H2's central claim is about motivation — a bonded pair caring about each other's card — and §3 says as much. 200-game aggregates measure dynamics, not motivation (Taxonomy.md §4).
The panel is still greedy-family, as CB-EV-0031 said of itself. Criterion 3 asks for "some policy that still sometimes wins" and we have two, both derived from the same ranking.
These are single-sample figures. CB-REV-0003 #10 found the 2p arm counts varying 354–366 across seed windows; nothing here has been re-derived on a second sample, and the won columns should be read as approximate.
No re-review. CB-WP-0038's tier-L review found twelve fatal defects across three rounds, all in the instrument. This pass reuses that instrument.

Open after this pass

Criterion 4 needs a policy that models other seats, or a table.
A second seed window, to separate the invariant figures from the sample-specific ones as CB-EV-0031 §1 now does.
The 3p variance miss (1.50 vs 1.57) is within what a second sample might move; it is reported as a miss because that is what this sample says.

4.9 KiB Raw Blame History Unescape Escape