tegwick
fe772eebc9
Some checks are pending
ci / check (push) Waiting to run
The maintainer's ask: game interface left, meta and commentary right, with comments bound to game state so a test player's perception, confusion and reasoning become reviewable signal. Declared M (chaos d8=7, no override, declaration 10 of window 2). It touches two canonical interfaces: ADR-0007 D5's input contract, which currently admits only raw pointer facts, and the recorded-session format, which is deny_unknown_fields -- CB-WP-0026 just proved that bites. FRAMED AS GameDesign §5's TRIAL PROTOCOL MADE ERGONOMIC, because that is what it is. The protocol already exists and nobody would use it as written: it asks the player to reconstruct their reasoning afterwards, from memory, in a sibling file. A comment typed while the position is on screen is contemporaneous, bound to something replayable, and captures the one class of signal no gate in this project can see -- confusion and frustration. The reason it is worth more than a comment box: GameDesign §3.1 makes a note unreportable until it has a reproduction, and three findings are stuck there now (F12, F14, F15). A comment bound to a recorded state, plus the recording, is the cheapest reproduction a play-derived observation can have. So the pass closes the register's input path for findings that come from playing rather than from building. The failure it must not reproduce is named up front: a pile of prose nobody reads is this project's signature defect -- the four-day unread message, the ten uncollected rulings. Storage is not the deliverable, surfacing is, and T04 carries it. T01 (ADR-0014) must decide where comments live, what the page may send (D5's transport widens from two ids to arbitrary user text -- amended or merely scoped?), what binds a comment to a position, and the retention question this project has not faced: these are the maintainer's own words about his own game, one will eventually be unflattering, and whether they travel to ground-game needs deciding before any are written. T03 notes that esc() is about to face its first hostile input -- until now it has escaped suit names. loop-lint: no findings. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md | ||
| CB-WP-0002-cost-accounting.md | ||
| CB-WP-0003-loop-hardening.md | ||
| CB-WP-0004-mechanical-work.md | ||
| CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md | ||
| CB-WP-0006-instrument-the-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0007-session-shape.md | ||
| CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md | ||
| CB-WP-0009-adaptive-gates.md | ||
| CB-WP-0010-consolidation.md | ||
| CB-WP-0011-inspectable-table.md | ||
| CB-WP-0012-render-port.md | ||
| CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md | ||
| CB-WP-0014-execute-the-javascript.md | ||
| CB-WP-0015-the-inert-clauses.md | ||
| CB-WP-0016-the-drop-target.md | ||
| CB-WP-0017-legible-interaction.md | ||
| CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md | ||
| CB-WP-0019-the-am4-family.md | ||
| CB-WP-0020-the-table-you-can-read.md | ||
| CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md | ||
| CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md | ||
| CB-WP-0023-solve-legality.md | ||
| CB-WP-0024-the-table-you-can-watch.md | ||
| CB-WP-0025-could-we-have-won.md | ||
| CB-WP-0026-collect-the-rulings.md | ||
| CB-WP-0027-the-commentary-track.md | ||