tegwick
47e7941057
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
The H2 panel measured wins, variance and DARVO but not ATTACK selection — which is F17's actual question. attack-value now runs H2 too. The shape is the finding. Under H1 a seat that sometimes attacks loses everything at 3p and above. Under H2 rank-75 wins 112/173/199 against greedy's 120/175/199, while attacking and arming DARVO. So H2 makes occasional ATTACK affordable — it does not make it pay. rank-75 never beats greedy in any cell, and rank-95 (always attack) still wins 0 everywhere in all three variants, so "not always-attack-optimal" holds. F17 therefore stands: ATTACK earns its place in no mode. What changed is that choosing it is no longer catastrophic. Whether affordable is what the design wants is ground-game's judgement. And a hazard: with_variant() exists because H2 assigns Problem owners at setup and `state.variant = v` leaves them unassigned, so scoped pressure ticks nobody and H2 measures as INERT. Three call sites had the bare write, including cb-play's driver. No published figure is affected, and that was checked rather than assumed: h2-panel used the builder, and the two harnesses with the bare write had only ever run baseline and H1, neither of which has a setup step; the driver has never played H2. All three fixed, and a_bare_variant_write_leaves_h2_inert now states the difference so a regression is caught by a named test rather than by a reader wondering why H2 did nothing. The builder was not enough — the field is public, so the old form still compiles. Worth knowing before the next variant. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| attack-value.rs | ||
| difficulty-baseline.rs | ||
| difficulty.rs | ||
| h2-panel.rs | ||
| perfect-recall.rs | ||
| regulation.rs | ||