tegwick
ff89288581
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Measured against ground-game's own §3 criteria, read from their design note rather than reused from H1. Criterion 1 met with room: greedy SHARED wins 120 at 3p and 175 at 4p, against H1's 0 and 0, restoring 73% and 92% of baseline. Criterion 3 met, and it was H1's clearest failure. Under H1 the unregulated seat armed DARVO constantly and never won; under H2 it arms and wins 13/13/57. "Non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins" is exactly the shape H1 could not produce. Criterion 2 met at 2p/4p/6p and missed at 3p — 1.50 against baseline's 1.57 — reported as a miss because that is what this sample says. The mechanism is visible: H1-greedy's spread is 0.00 at 3p+, because a flat tax on every seat creates no variance at all. That is the clearest statement of why scoping was the right correction. Criterion 5 is the best evidence in the pass. Forcing every scope to global and changing nothing else reproduces H1's collapse exactly — 120 to 0 at 3p, 175 to 0 at 4p — so the scoping is what saves it, not any other difference between the packages. Criterion 4 came out backwards and the prediction held. The workplan said this panel might be unable to test it, because no policy here models another seat or knows what a scope is; bond claim rates are LOWER than personal at 3p and 4p, driven by suit availability rather than incentive. Reported as untested with an incidental figure pointing the wrong way, not as a refutation. Wired into make panels. First pass declared after ADR-0021, so no chaos roll is recorded. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| ground | ||