clay-borg/specs
tegwick f4eeddd726
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it
says

Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.

But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.

THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.

So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.

  rank 10 (below all):   132/165/190/200/200 wins,    0 attacks,    0 DARVO
  rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923,      13-218
  rank 95 (above SOLVE):     0/0/0/0/0 wins,        1400-5170,   400-1000

THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.

The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.

Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.

F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-07 10:08:47 +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 25 test games, no faults — and F17 gets the artifact that changes what it 2026-08-07 10:08:47 +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