clay-borg/specs/FindingRegister.md

# 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| F13 | inconsistent | withdrawn | scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml | counterexample | 2026-08-01 | clay-borg |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 | raised | games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs | counterexample | 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 |
| F22 | underdetermined | withdrawn | games_ground::edition::supply_tests::play_never_exceeds_the_components_the_box_holds | counterexample | 2026-08-07 | 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*.
- **F22 — does the component supply bind the game? Asked, measured, and
  withdrawn.** `Tokens.csv` gives every component a `quantity` — 6
  Protection, 5 Denied, 12 relation links — and **no numbered rule
  mentions a supply**, so the engine could in principle mint a seventh
  Protection token (`saturating_add`, no bound, `lib.rs:986`). Measured
  over **750 games**, 2–6 seats, greedy and random: Protection reaches 1
  per seat and 2 on the table; Denied 3 of 5; links **exactly 12 of 12**,
  never over, because GR-L01's two-slot rule *is* the twelve-token supply
  written twice. Focus/Blame: 0 conflicts. **Withdrawn — nothing to
  report.** Registered as a stated negative because a survey that finds
  nothing and leaves no trace cannot be told from one that was never run.
  The check ships as a standing control (ADR-0016 D3): if play ever does
  exceed a quantity, that is a **finding for ground-game** — *does the box
  bound the game, or do the rules?* — and **not** a bound for the engine to
  invent.
- **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 — ATTACK cannot affect whether the table succeeds.** Reported
  from play as *"there is no incentive to play attacks as long as I have
  positive cards"*, and **the artifact now exists**:
  `games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs`, 200 games per cell, one number
  varied — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise identical policy.

  | ATTACK ranked | wins (2/3/4/5/6p) | attacks | DARVO armed |
  |---|---|---:|---:|
  | 10 (below all) | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200 | 0 | 0 |
  | 75 (above SUPPORT) | **132 / 165 / 190 / 200 / 200** | 315–923 | 13–218 |
  | 95 (above SOLVE) | **0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0** | 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. Attacking
  is not punished — it is **inert with respect to the goal**. Group success
  is a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK only costs anything when it
  ranks above SOLVE and displaces it.

  **So the maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than the
  phrasing.** There is no incentive because there is no *path*: ATTACK's
  effects (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides
  `group_success`.

  **Bounded to SHARED GROUND.** These are co-op games. Blame costs
  *personal* score, so ATTACK may well earn its place in GR-E03 and
  GR-E04 — **which have never been played to the end (F14)**, and that is
  where this question should be asked next.

  **Not a claim that the game is broken.** DARVO is the pattern the game
  is *about* not falling into; 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.
- **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.