tegwick
b12725566b
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Tier S (a fix inside a boundary; chaos d8=7 from the previous roll stands
for this continuation). Two observations from play that are ONE defect.
`play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move buttons carried `.pick`,
which is cursor:grab. The stylesheet has .btn{cursor:pointer} BEFORE
.pick{cursor:grab}, so grab won.
A GRAB CURSOR INVITES A DRAG. A drag released over nothing posts nothing,
so the player picked up the button, let go, and the page did nothing. It
looked dead because the affordance told them to do the one thing that does
not work. Reported as two separate things -- "the button shows a hand to
pick up that it probably shouldn't" and "I can't start another game or
stop the server" -- and the first causes the second.
The click path itself was never broken: driving again->again and
done->done through the JS harness posts correctly. The logic was fine and
the invitation was wrong.
Click targets now carry `.tap` -- pointer cursor, same press affordance.
This extends CB-WP-0017's rule (interactive and inert must not look
identical) to: click and drag must not look identical either. The test
asserts both directions, because checking only that buttons lost `.pick`
would pass for a page with no affordances at all.
Registered F20 (applied) and F21.
F21 IS THE ONE I COULD NOT REPRODUCE: dragging did not work until after
the first note was saved. Ruled out the plausible mechanisms -- the
gesture logic posts correctly against the served page, the drag ghost
carries pointer-events:none so it cannot intercept the drop, and the
markup is identical before and after since the 303 re-renders the same
page from the same state. Remaining candidates are a <details> toggle
shifting layout mid-drag, a first-load timing difference, or browser-level
pointer capture. Reproducing it needs a browser, which no test here has --
the same gap F19 named. Recorded as unreproduced rather than given a
speculative fix.
And the fourth observation is confirmation, not a bug: "drawing my cards
from the deck is not implemented, I did not need to do that" is exactly
what CB-WP-0028 T04 determined and deliberately did not build. It is the
first evidence that importing the card text closed the comprehension gap
that produced the earlier click-the-deck request.
make all: exit 0. 62 render tests, 26 cb-play.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
216 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
216 lines
13 KiB
Markdown
# The finding register
|
||
|
||
Design findings about **GROUND**, with their reproductions. Governed by
|
||
[`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md) (admissibility, kinds, states, metrics)
|
||
and [ADR-0012](../decisions/ADR-0012-the-design-instrument.md). Reported
|
||
by `make design`.
|
||
|
||
**Split out of `GroundRules.md §Underdetermined` on 2026-08-05** when that
|
||
file crossed the ~400-line loadability limit. ADR-0012 D2 said *"no new
|
||
file"* and this is a new file — but D2's substance was **one register, not
|
||
a second mechanism competing with the first**, and that holds: this *is*
|
||
§Underdetermined's register, moved, still driving off the same
|
||
`provisional`/ruling machinery. D2 also named the awkwardness this
|
||
resolves — a finding about the engine sitting in a document about the
|
||
game.
|
||
|
||
The U-items themselves, with their defaults and rulings, stay in
|
||
[`GroundRules.md §Underdetermined`](GroundRules.md); this file tracks them
|
||
*as findings*.
|
||
|
||
**This section is the design-finding register** (ADR-0012 D2). It was the
|
||
register for dataset ambiguities already; CB-WP-0022 extended it to all
|
||
five kinds rather than building a second one beside it. Admissibility,
|
||
kinds, states and metrics: [`GameDesign.md`](GameDesign.md). Reported by
|
||
`make design`.
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:begin -->
|
||
|
||
| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| U1 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U2 | underdetermined | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-d01-darvo-trigger.yaml | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U3 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U4 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U5 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U6 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U7 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U8 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U9 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| U10 | underdetermined | applied | — | default | 2026-07-31 | ground-game |
|
||
| F11 | inert | applied | scenarios/ground/gr-p05-solve-legality.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-02 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F12 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F14 | unplayed | note | — | — | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F15 | underdetermined | note | — | — | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F16 | inconsistent | withdrawn | games/ground/examples/difficulty.rs | counterexample | 2026-08-05 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F17 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | ground-game |
|
||
| F18 | inert | raised | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F19 | degenerate | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::overhead_table | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F20 | inert | applied | crates/cb-render-html/src/lib.rs::ending_page | counterexample | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
| F21 | degenerate | note | — | — | 2026-08-06 | clay-borg |
|
||
|
||
<!-- design-register:end -->
|
||
|
||
- **F11 — SOLVE offered where it cannot act.** Offered on a face-down
|
||
Problem, or with no matching suit in hand; inert every time. Ruled
|
||
GROUND-WP-0002 T02, implemented CB-WP-0023 as GR-P05. `applied` — the
|
||
rule changed, not just the annotation. **The case we reported was not the
|
||
case that fired**: `validate` already rejected face-down, and the
|
||
maintainer's three inert SOLVEs were the *hand* case.
|
||
- **F12 — GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE" on an already-claimed Problem.** A
|
||
scenario had to pick a default and did. `note`: no artifact isolates the
|
||
degenerate line, so under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until
|
||
one exists.
|
||
- **F13 — GR-E01 vs GR-S01, withdrawn 2026-08-05.** Raised as *"4/6/9
|
||
against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."* `2da19a4` measured **6/9/12
|
||
against 5/7/9** and the scenario was renamed `-unreachable-` →
|
||
`-reachable-`. **Its reproduction is green**, which under GameDesign §1.3
|
||
is the alarm that forced the resolution. Withdrawn rather than deleted,
|
||
and the withdrawal is reported (ADR-0012 D5).
|
||
- **F16 — "the game is too easy at 5–6 seats", withdrawn the day it was
|
||
raised.** Claimed from `GreedyPolicy` winning 200/200 at those seat
|
||
counts. A `FirstLegal` policy scores **0%** on the identical deals, and
|
||
at two seats it *beats* greedy — two unsophisticated agents span the
|
||
whole range, so the measurement was about the policy. Caught by the
|
||
CB-WP-0025 adversarial review (C4) **before transmission**; it would
|
||
have been the fifth wrong premise sent to ground-game and the worst,
|
||
since GROUND-WP-0005 is blocked on exactly this number. The withdrawal
|
||
was reported (ADR-0012 D5). Its reproduction is `difficulty.rs`, whose
|
||
policy panel is plural *because of this finding*.
|
||
- **F21 — dragging did not work until after the first note was saved.**
|
||
Reported 2026-08-06: *"I could not drag and drop at the beginning but
|
||
after I added the first comment it worked."* **`note`, and I could not
|
||
reproduce it.** The gesture logic is correct against the served page
|
||
(the JS harness posts properly), the ghost carries `pointer-events:none`
|
||
so it cannot intercept the drop, and the markup is identical before and
|
||
after the note — the 303 re-renders the same page from the same state.
|
||
**Candidates, none confirmed:** a `<details>` toggle inside an action
|
||
card shifting the layout mid-drag; a first-load timing difference; or a
|
||
browser-level pointer capture. **Reproducing it needs a browser, which
|
||
no test here has** — the same gap F19 named. Recorded rather than
|
||
guessed at.
|
||
- **F20 — a click target wearing a drag affordance made the ending
|
||
controls look dead.** `play again`, `end session`, `pass` and the move
|
||
buttons carried `.pick`, which is `cursor:grab`. A grab cursor invites a
|
||
**drag**, and a drag released over nothing posts nothing — so the button
|
||
did nothing and appeared broken. Reported as two separate observations
|
||
(*"the button shows a hand to pick up that it probably shouldn't"* and
|
||
*"I can't start another game or stop the server"*) which are one defect.
|
||
**`applied`**: click targets now carry `.tap`. **This extends CB-WP-0017's
|
||
rule** — interactive and inert must not look identical — to *click and
|
||
drag must not look identical either*.
|
||
- **F19 — the engine shipped a table nobody could play on, and every gate
|
||
was green.** CB-WP-0028's overhead view was 620px tall, so the action
|
||
cards sat a screen below the Problems; dragging between them was
|
||
physically impossible. Seats were drawn *inside* the table, and the
|
||
`table` drop target was a card among the buttons rather than the drawn
|
||
surface. **`make all` passed throughout**, because every test asserted
|
||
the DOM was correct — which it was. The JS harness even posts a correct
|
||
gesture against a page a human cannot drag on. `degenerate`: the feature
|
||
fires and collapses play. **`applied`** — fixed 2026-08-06, with height,
|
||
seat-position and single-drop-zone proxies added. **They are proxies.**
|
||
Nothing here lays out a browser, and the gap CB-EV-0026 named — that no
|
||
gate measures whether a player can play — is unclosed.
|
||
- **F17 — no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions.**
|
||
Reported from play, 2026-08-06: *"there is no incentive to play attacks
|
||
as long as I have positive cards."* If true, ATTACK is a dead branch for
|
||
most of a game, which would make GR-A06/A07/A08 and the whole Rivalry
|
||
half of the relation system reachable only when a player is out of good
|
||
options. **`note`, not a finding**: no artifact demonstrates it yet. One
|
||
is cheap — count ATTACK selections across the policy panel and compare
|
||
against hand quality — and until it exists this may not go to
|
||
`ground-game` (GameDesign §3.1). **Owner is ground-game if it survives**;
|
||
it would be a design finding, not an engine one.
|
||
- **F18 — the engine imports one of nineteen edition files, so the cards
|
||
cannot say what they do.** Reported as *"I don't understand the GROUND
|
||
card"* — which is not a design gap: `Actions.csv` carries that card's
|
||
tagline (*"Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide."*) and full rules text,
|
||
and clay-borg never imported it. Every other card is the same: a player
|
||
sees `Clarify` where the card reads *"Ask What Happened — Invite a
|
||
concrete account before judging."* **`inert`**: the data exists and
|
||
cannot fire, because nothing reads it. **Ours, and CB-WP-0028 fixes it.**
|
||
- **F15 — the rules define one game, not a series.** `OutcomeView` gives
|
||
`personal` (per seat), `group_success` (per table) and `winners`. Summing
|
||
the first and counting the third answer different questions, and GROUND
|
||
says nothing about how several games combine. CB-WP-0024 T04 shows
|
||
**both, labelled**, rather than picking one and letting it become the
|
||
score by default. `note`: no artifact demonstrates that this *harms*
|
||
play — a unit test showing the two tallies point at different seats
|
||
demonstrates only that they can differ, which is arithmetic, not a design
|
||
defect. Under GameDesign §3.1 it may not be reported until one exists.
|
||
- **F14 — GR-E03/GR-E04 never played to the end.** Nineteen passes, never
|
||
played out. `note` until a trial game exists; GROUND-WP-0003 is the
|
||
playtest that would close it, and GameDesign §5's protocol makes the
|
||
recording the artifact.
|
||
|
||
### The register's first run found ten answers nobody had collected
|
||
|
||
**U1–U10 are `ruled`, not `reported`.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 answered all
|
||
ten on **2026-08-03** — every one **confirmed** as the default clay-borg
|
||
already simulates — and GROUND-WP-0002 T03 confirmed five of the six
|
||
provisional scenarios, voiding `gr-e01` as a rules gap. The workplan is
|
||
`finished`.
|
||
|
||
CB-RES-0007 reported *"0 of 10 ruled"* and this register was built saying
|
||
`reported`. **Both were two days stale on the day they were written.** The
|
||
answers had arrived and nothing propagated them — the same failure as the
|
||
unread inbox, in the opposite direction.
|
||
|
||
**They are `ruled`, not `applied`, and the difference is work we owe.**
|
||
Per ADR-0012 D5, `applied` means the source changed and the provisional
|
||
default was deleted. The rulings *confirmed* our defaults, so the rules did
|
||
not move — but the scenarios still carry `provisional: true` for choices
|
||
that are now settled. **Lifting those flags and recording each ruling is
|
||
what closes U1–U10**, and it is not done. `make design` shows them open
|
||
until it is.
|
||
|
||
### The U-item ↔ scenario mapping, measured twice
|
||
|
||
**One U-item has a scenario that names it: U2.** CB-RES-0007 asserted six
|
||
of ten did.
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0026 T03 tried to write the other mappings and **produced two wrong
|
||
ones before checking them**:
|
||
|
||
| claimed | why it was withdrawn |
|
||
|---|---|
|
||
| `gr-a04-bond-support` → U1 | it asserts consent is **required**; U1 asks **when** the target accepts. Different question. |
|
||
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` → U5 | it exercises the **unrejected** REVERSE; U5 is the **rejected** one (GROUND—ND). Different stage. |
|
||
|
||
Both were plausible from the `covers:` list and both were wrong on
|
||
reading the description. **That is the third and fourth instance of this
|
||
exact defect** — a link that looks right, asserted without checking what
|
||
the artifact actually exercises — and the first two reached ground-game.
|
||
|
||
So a scenario now declares `encodes_u_item` explicitly or claims nothing.
|
||
**Nine U-items have no reproduction and are recorded as having none.**
|
||
They are `applied` because the ruling landed and the provisional flag came
|
||
off, not because anything demonstrates them.
|
||
|
||
### What the backfill measured, and what it contradicted
|
||
|
||
**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Measured, not estimated:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
for u in U1 .. U10; do grep -lE "\b$u\b" scenarios/ground/*.yaml; done
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
CB-RES-0007 asserted *"six of the ten already have provisional
|
||
scenarios."* Five provisional scenarios exist and **one** cites the item
|
||
it stands for. The other four may well encode U-item defaults — the
|
||
mapping is simply **not written down**, so it is not checkable, and an
|
||
uncheckable link is the defect this register exists to fix. The register
|
||
records what is citable; the rest is debt, visible in `make design`.
|
||
|
||
**No sixth kind was needed** — the five kinds absorbed all four non-U
|
||
findings. And the survey's *"six provisional defaults"* was **not** entered
|
||
as a finding: C3 showed it double-counted GR-E01, and the provisional
|
||
scenarios are *reproductions for* underdetermined items, not a finding of
|
||
their own.
|
||
|
||
**U1–U10 are `reported` while lacking reproductions**, which GameDesign
|
||
§3.1 would now forbid. They were reported on 2026-07-30, before the rule
|
||
existed. They are grandfathered rather than rewritten, and the debt is a
|
||
reported metric with a target of zero.
|
||
|