clay-borg/specs
tegwick 02402c36b2
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered
Nine observations from the maintainer's session. Two are about the game
and go to the register; seven are about the engine and are this workplan.

F18 IS THE ONE THAT REFRAMES THE PASS. "I don't understand the GROUND
card" reads as a design problem. It is not: Actions.csv carries that
card's own tagline -- "Regulate. Restore the frame. Decide." -- and its
full rules text, and clay-borg never imported it. We vendored ONE OF
NINETEEN edition files. Everything else the engine knows is a
hand-transcription into GroundRules.md's 59 numbered rules, which is
enough to PLAY the game and gives a player nothing to READ. The page shows
`Clarify` where the card says "Ask What Happened -- Invite a concrete
account before judging." Registered as `inert`: the data exists and cannot
fire, because nothing reads it.

Found by a player saying he did not understand something. Rule coverage is
59/59 and has been for weeks.

F17: no incentive to ATTACK while holding useful Solutions. Registered as
a NOTE, not a finding -- no artifact demonstrates it, and under GameDesign
§3.1 it may not go to ground-game until one exists. One is cheap (count
ATTACK selections across the policy panel against hand quality). Owner is
ground-game if it survives, since it would be a design finding.

The workplan (M, chaos d8=1, no override, declaration 11 of window 2)
carries the seven engine observations. Two tasks are deliberately shaped
against past mistakes:

T01 must decide whether ADR-0011's hand-rolled CSV reader survives
Solutions.csv, whose microcopy and rules_text are prose with commas and
quotes -- ADR-0011 named exactly that as its revisit condition, so if the
reader cannot parse them the dependency argument gets re-run rather than a
fragile parser written.

T04 must first establish whether "click the deck to draw" is a legal move
at all. GR-A01 draws as part of INVESTIGATE; the deck is not a thing a
player may take from. If it is not legal, that is a FINDING for
ground-game -- the maintainer expected an interaction the rules do not
offer -- and not a feature. CB-WP-0023 exists because SOLVE was offered
where it could not act.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 15:34:58 +02:00
..
ArchitectureBlueprint.md T01: audit every InnerLoop rule, and make the checkable ones executable 2026-07-31 09:16:00 +02:00
ArchitectureRuntime.md T01: audit every InnerLoop rule, and make the checkable ones executable 2026-07-31 09:16:00 +02:00
CostAccounting.md CB-WP-0004 T04: fact registry and make facts-check — DFD gets a gate 2026-07-31 10:24:39 +02:00
FindingRegister.md CB-WP-0028 declared, and two findings from play registered 2026-08-06 15:34:58 +02:00
GameDesign.md CB-WP-0022 T05/T06/T07: the register, and what its first run found 2026-08-05 15:22:33 +02:00
GameKernel.md CB-WP-0019 T01/T02: AM-4b asks what a contributor acquires 2026-08-03 19:04:54 +02:00
GroundRules.md CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied 2026-08-05 16:13:37 +02:00
InnerLoop.md CB-WP-0019 T03/T04: the cost rule written down, and the lifecycle 2026-08-03 19:25:18 +02:00
InnerLoopReference.md CB-WP-0019 T03/T04: the cost rule written down, and the lifecycle 2026-08-03 19:25:18 +02:00
MetricsAndScenarios.md CB-WP-0023: SOLVE is legal only where it can do something 2026-08-04 00:18:40 +02:00
RetrospectiveAnalysis.md CB-WP-0025 T05: the search works, and it falsified this pass's own 2026-08-05 19:10:25 +02:00
SessionShape.md CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate 2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00