tegwick
713a9df7fd
The maintainer could not tell whether "error", "failure", "finding" or "correction" referred to the game's design, our formalisation of it, the code, the measuring apparatus, or the sentences we wrote. Three review rounds produced twenty-odd defect statements spanning five systems, all called errors. The confusion was ours. specs/Taxonomy.md, grounded in named canon rather than invented here: six strata from Sargent's problem entity / conceptual model / computerized model, extended where a simulation-V&V frame stops — we also own an instrument and an account. The two relations are what was missing: GAME<->MODEL is validation, MODEL<->ENGINE is verification, and nearly every argument about "our bug or their gap" was that distinction going unnamed. Fault/error/failure from Avizienis et al., applied within a stratum, plus the rule that explains the review history: a failure in one stratum is a fault in the next. And it finally defines the family ADR-0018 could only point at — a wrong-subject error is an ACCOUNT failure with no INSTRUMENT fault, which is why tests never catch them. MDA supplies the game-facing layers and one hard limit: our panels measure dynamics, our trial logs sample aesthetics, and a win rate does not answer "is it fun". specs/Positioning.md names the field fairly — Ludii is the closest relative and the right benchmark — and the four differentiators, each already built rather than aspired to. Clay-borg is a design-evidence instrument; anyone can produce the number. Three tracks named and none started: a second game, game theory as the lens on dynamics, and assimilated knowledge about why games work. Track A is the falsifier for the whole positioning: every abstraction here has exactly one instance, which by our own rule may mean invented rather than observed. Chaos window 3 closes at 12 declarations with one override that changed nothing. Its verdict is due and is deliberately not written here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
4.2 KiB
Chaos roll — window records
One entry per chaos window. Split out of InnerLoopReference.md when that
file crossed the loadability limit: this is a log that grows, and a log
inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference.
The rule itself lives in InnerLoop.md §Loop tiers; the
current window's terms are there. This is the history the verdicts rest on.
Window 1 (d4, closed 2026-08-02): 12 declarations, 2 overrides, one each way, and both changed the outcome. The mechanism was kept and the rate dropped d4 → d8 (CB-EV-0015 §5, CB-EV-0016 §4).
Window 2 (d8, 2026-08-03 → 2026-08-07): 12 declarations, of which 11 rolled at d8 — declaration 1 (CB-WP-0018) opened the window and rolled at the old d4. Expected 8s: 1.375. Observed: 1.
| decl | pass | roll | effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0018 | d4 = 3 | opened the window at the old rate |
| 2 | CB-WP-0019 | d8 = 5 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0020 | d8 = 8 | override — drew S over a structural S: changed nothing |
| 4 | CB-WP-0021 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5–9 | CB-WP-0022…0026 | d8 = 6 ×5 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0027 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 11 | CB-WP-0028 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0029 | d8 = 4 | — |
Verdict (ADR-0017): the rate is behaving as designed. One override against 1.375 expected is not a shortage of evidence.
Why the retirement condition changed. "An override changes nothing twice running" requires a consecutive pair, each with P = 1/3, so ~12 overrides are expected before one occurs — at ~1.4 overrides per window, ~9 windows or roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out on any realistic horizon is decoration (ADR-0006 D3). It is now evaluated per window, needing two consecutive qualifying windows: ~24 declarations rather than ~100.
Four evidence files claimed window 2 produced zero overrides. They were wrong, and each cited the one before rather than counting. See F23 — the failure is a claim with no source, asserted once and repeated, which no gate here detects.
A post-hoc observation, deliberately not acted on. Declarations 5–9
rolled six five times running (~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven
rolls). shuf was tested over 200 rapid successive calls and looks
uniform, longest run three. Recorded so a future window can check whether
it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own.
Window 3 — opened 2026-08-07 at d8, running to 12 declarations
| # | pass | roll | override |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0030 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 2 | CB-WP-0031 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0032 | d8 = 6 | — |
| 4 | CB-WP-0033 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5 | CB-WP-0034 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 6 | CB-WP-0035 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 7 | CB-WP-0036 (first declaration) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 8 | CB-WP-0036 (re-declared L→M) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0038 | d8 = 8 | yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing |
| 11 | CB-WP-0039 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0040 | d8 = 5 | — |
The window's first 8, at declaration 10. Expectation over ten rolls at d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate.
The override changed nothing, which is the observation ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition is built from — it needs a full window whose overrides all change nothing, in two consecutive windows. This window now had one qualifying override, and it changed nothing.
Window 3 is closed at 12 declarations. Its verdict is due and is not written here — recording it is a change to how the loop constrains its own operation, which is a tier-M trigger in its own right, and window 2's verdict was delayed the same way. One override in twelve, changing nothing, is the second consecutive window to produce no override that changed an outcome; ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition asks for exactly that in two consecutive windows and should now be evaluated rather than restated.
Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan, counted separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was re-scoped from L to M after the maintainer moved the animation work out of the repo, and a changed declaration is a new declaration or the roll is not binding on what was actually built.