clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0024-the-table-you-can-watch.md

---
id: CB-WP-0024
kind: product
title: "The table you can watch: the piles, the other seats' moves, the score that carries"
status: ready
---

# Purpose

```
structural tier  S   (renders state the projection already carries, inside
                      cb-render-html and cb-play — no new port, no canonical
                      interface, no dependency)
chaos            d8 = 6  → no override
declared tier    S
```

Declaration 7 of chaos window 2.

## Five remarks from play, and what is actually true of each

The maintainer played several games and reported five things. Four are
this pass. Each was checked against the code before being written down,
because **two findings have already reached `ground-game` on wrong
premises** (CB-WP-0023 T01, GROUND-WP-0004 T02) and the rule now is that a
claim names the line that makes it true.

| # | reported | what the code says |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | *"the button next to new game says 'I need to read this' — why? the UI is not closing"* | `doc.rs:825` renders `close — I have read this`. `hotseat.rs:248` reads it as **shut the server down**. The label describes a reading; the control ends a process. And nothing closes: a page cannot close a tab it did not open, so the tab sits there showing a dead game against a dead port. |
| 4 | *"following the other players is only possible in the log"* | Wrong by degree, not in kind. `player_card` (`doc.rs:385`) draws each seat, and `selections` are `Shown` for every seat once `step != Select` (`view.rs`) — so the data is there and is being drawn as words. What is missing is that a seat's *play* is not drawn **as a card on the table**. |
| 4b | *"visualise the draw stack and the discard stack"* | Both already project: `solution_deck_len` and `solution_discard` (`view.rs`). `body()` prints them as one line of text (`doc.rs:575`). Nothing is missing from the model; the whole gap is rendering. |
| 5 | *"if we calculate scores, show them — and a cumulative score over several games"* | Per-game scores exist and **are already drawn**: `OutcomeView.personal`, `.mastery`, `.winners`, `.total`/`.threshold` (`doc.rs:582–628`). Cumulative does not exist at all: `table.rs:241` loops `run_game` and returns **only the last summary**. |

Remarks 2 (*how could we have won*) and 3 (*difficulty*) are **not this
pass** — they need a search and a measurement, not a renderer. They are
CB-WP-0025.

**So this pass is smaller than the remarks make it sound.** One control is
mislabelled, one number is missing, and three things that already project
are being written as text where a picture would read better. That is why
it is S: no new state leaves the aggregate, and `view.rs` gains nothing
except where task T04 says so explicitly.

## Task: the ending control says what it does, and the page acts on it

```task
id: CB-WP-0024-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```

Two defects behind one button.

**The label lies about the mechanism.** `done` does not mean *I have read
this*; it means *stop serving*. Rename it to what it does — the session
ends, the process exits — and drop the first-person reading claim. The
`data-drop` key stays `done`: `hotseat.rs:248` matches on the body and the
tests in `hotseat.rs:524` drive it.

**The page does not change.** After the POST the server replies `closed`
and breaks its loop; the tab keeps showing a live-looking table with a
`play again` control that now hits a closed port. Replace the page body on
acknowledgement with a terminal state that says the session has ended and
this tab can be closed — and **disable `play again` at the same moment**,
because a control that can no longer work must not look like it can.

**Controls:**
- a test asserts the acknowledged page no longer offers `again` — not just
  that it shows different words;
- `hotseat.rs`'s existing `play_again_deals_a_second_game` must still
  pass unchanged, or the key was renamed and the server was not told;
- the label change must be mutation-visible: assert the rendered text, so
  reverting the wording turns a test red.

## Task: the piles are objects on the table

```task
id: CB-WP-0024-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```

Draw the draw stack and the discard stack as stacks, with their counts on
top, replacing the text line at `doc.rs:575`. `problem_svg` and
`relations_svg` are the precedent for how this repo draws — follow them
rather than inventing a second idiom.

The maintainer asked for one thing the model does not yet do: **when the
draw stack runs out, the discard shows a shuffle**. Before drawing that,
establish whether it happens. Search the aggregate for the reshuffle: if
`solution_deck` is refilled from `solution_discard` anywhere, render the
moment; **if it is not, that is a finding, not a rendering task** — the
deck can be exhausted and the rules do not say what then. Raise it through
CB-WP-0022's register as *underdetermined* and report it to `ground-game`.
Do not implement a reshuffle. Inventing rules is what CB-WP-0023 exists to
stop.

**Controls:**
- the drawn counts come from `solution_deck_len` and
  `solution_discard.len()`, asserted against the view, never recomputed;
- a discard of zero cards renders as an empty pile, not as a missing one —
  an absent slot reads as "no discard exists in this game";
- the shuffle question is answered in the task record with the line number
  that settles it, either way.

## Task: what the other seats played, on the table

```task
id: CB-WP-0024-T03
status: todo
priority: high
```

Each seat's revealed selection should be legible as a played card in that
seat's area, not only as a sentence in `selection_words` and a line in the
log. The log stays — it is the record, and CB-WP-0018 built it for a
reason. This adds the picture, it does not replace the text.

**The hiding rule is not negotiable and is not this pass's to touch.**
`SelectionView::Hidden` is what a face-down selection projects, and
`a_seat_never_sees_another_seats_face_down_selection` asserts it on the
serialized view. A rendering that draws something suggestive of the hidden
choice — a suit tint, a differently-shaped back, anything varying with the
hidden value — is a leak even though the model did not leak. Draw
face-down as one identical back.

**Controls:**
- a test renders a mid-`Select` view and asserts the HTML contains nothing
  that varies with another seat's hidden selection;
- the same view after Reveal shows it — otherwise the assertion above
  passes for a renderer that draws nothing at all (this is the shape
  `view.rs`'s own test already uses; copy it);
- `make sim` still passes: 26 scenarios encode what the table looks like.

## Task: the score that carries across games

```task
id: CB-WP-0024-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
```

`play` (`table.rs:219`) already owns the session — one listener, a seed
that advances, `run_game` in a loop — and throws away every summary but
the last. Accumulate them and show the running tally on the ending page,
beside the per-game outcome that is already drawn.

**Decide what "cumulative" means before summing anything, and write the
answer down.** `OutcomeView` carries `personal` (per seat, `i32`),
`mastery`, `group_success` and `winners`. Summing `personal` across games
and counting `winners` across games are different games' worth of
different answers, and the game is co-operative in a way that may make
neither the right one. If the rules do not say, **it is underdetermined**:
pick the one the code can defend, say in the UI which one is shown, and
raise the question rather than silently canonising a choice.

**Controls:**
- two games in one session produce a tally that is not either game's
  score alone — the weakest possible assertion, and the one that catches a
  tally reset by `play again`;
- the tally survives the seed advance and resets only on a new process;
- the per-game outcome block is unchanged, and a test says so.

## Task: evidence

```task
id: CB-WP-0024-T05
status: todo
priority: high
```

`evidence/CB-EV-0022-*.md`. Short — this is an S pass.

- **How many of the five remarks were already implemented**, and what that
  says about the table's legibility versus its content. Three of five were
  data already in the view being drawn as text. That is a finding about
  rendering, and it is worth naming.
- **Whether the deck can be exhausted**, as T02 settled it.
- **What the cumulative-score question turned out to be**, and whether it
  went to `ground-game`.
- **Quote CB-WP-0023's cost by re-running the instrument.**