ground-game/workplans/GROUND-WP-0002-rulings-clay-borg-is-blocked-on.md

---
id: GROUND-WP-0002
type: workplan
title: "Rulings the engine is blocked on, and the dataset it never loaded"
domain: consumer
repo: ground-game
status: ready
owner: bernd
topic_slug: whynot
created: "2026-08-03"
updated: "2026-08-03"
---

# Rulings the engine is blocked on

`clay-borg` implements the engine that simulates GROUND. Its INTENT says
game-semantics questions defer to **this** repo. Nine such questions have
accumulated there and none has been answered, because none had a home.
This is their home.

**Nothing here is a clay-borg change.** Every item is a ruling only the
game's owner can make; the engine already carries a provisional default
for each and will flip it when the ruling lands.

## The finding that reframes most of this

**The engine has never loaded this repository's edition data.**

`games/ground/src/lib.rs:1839` builds Problems with `value: priority` and
suits cycled by index — a stand-in it has always labelled as such. Mean-
while `editions/ground-darvo-r0/Problems.csv` has carried the real thing
since 2026-07-31:

| | problems per scenario | values | total available |
|---|---:|---|---:|
| `Problems.csv` (real) | **5** | 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 | **12** |
| the engine's stand-in | 3 | 1, 2, 3 | **6** |

The dataset also defines `required_solution` (Repair / Clarify /
Boundary), `visibility` (Surface / Hidden) and `hidden_priority` (0–4) —
all of which the engine currently invents.

**GR-E01's thresholds are 2p → 5, 3–4p → 7, 5–6p → 9.** Against 12
available points those are ordinary targets. Against a stand-in worth 6
they are unreachable, which is exactly what clay-borg reported as a rules
gap needing a ruling here.

**So the first question is not a rules question at all.** It is whether
this dataset is authoritative — and if it is, several of the items below
dissolve without anyone changing a rule.

## Task: declare the dataset authoritative, and say what the engine may rely on

```task
id: GROUND-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
```

State whether `editions/ground-darvo-r0/` is the **authoritative** source
for Problem values, required solutions, visibility and priority — and what
the engine may treat as stable.

`SCOPE.md` already promises *"stable IDs suitable for layout templates,
print merges, and later digital import."* This task turns that into a
contract clay-borg can build against:

- which columns are authoritative vs presentational;
- whether `point_value` and `required_solution` may change between `r0`
  and a later revision without a version bump;
- what a version bump looks like, so the engine can pin one.

**Until this is answered the engine cannot import the data, and every
threshold question below stays unanswerable.**

## Task: rule on SOLVE's legality

```task
id: GROUND-WP-0002-T02
status: todo
priority: high
```

Three related questions, all raised by play, all currently decided by the
engine's default rather than by the rules.

**(a) May SOLVE be selected against a *face-down* Problem?** Measured in
the browser on 2026-08-03: a player selected SOLVE on a face-down Problem
in three consecutive rounds. Nothing happened, three times, because
GR-A02's resolver skips a Problem that is not face up. The engine offered
the move each time.

A face-down commit you cannot fulfil is a plausible **bluff** in a
commit/reveal game with DARVO — which is why this is a ruling and not a
bug. But if it is a bluff it should be *intended*; if it is not, the move
should not be offered.

**(b) May SOLVE be selected when the seat holds no Solution of the
required suit?** Same shape: currently offered, silently does nothing.

**(c) GR-A13 — SOLVE against an already-claimed Problem.** Long-standing
in clay-borg's evidence as *"wasted SOLVE"*. Intended cost of a bad read,
or a gap?

For each: **intended, or not offered.** If intended, say what the player
is meant to learn from the waste.

## Task: confirm or overturn the six provisional defaults

```task
id: GROUND-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
```

Six engine scenarios are tagged `provisional: true` with
`provisional_owner: ground-game`. Each encodes a default the engine had to
pick because the rules did not say. A ruling flips the scenario; it does
not change the kernel.

| scenario | the default currently in force |
|---|---|
| `gr-a04-bond-support` | a Support with no existing relation forms **no** Bond, because GR-L02 requires the target's consent |
| `gr-d01-darvo-trigger` | Stress **clamps** at 5 on every application (GR-F01 under the U2 default) |
| `gr-d05-darvo-reverse` | the REVERSE stage's default resolution |
| `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p` | thresholds measured against the **stand-in** values — see the finding above |
| `gr-e02-shared-ground` | SHARED GROUND scoring default |
| `gr-e04-coalitions` | Bond networks score together; Rivalries do not connect; an unbonded player is a coalition of one |

Confirm each or overturn it. **`gr-e01` should be taken last**, because
T01 may dissolve it.

## Task: GR-E03 and GR-E04 have never been played to the end

```task
id: GROUND-WP-0002-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
```

Both scoring modes are implemented and neither has been played through a
full game — by a person or by the engine. Whatever the rules say, nobody
knows what these modes feel like at the table.

This is a **playtest** task, not an engine task, and it belongs here.