tegwick
ff89288581
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
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>
123 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
123 lines
4.9 KiB
Markdown
# 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`](../specs/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.
|