fix(workplans): adopt ADR-007 derived identifiers

Records absent from central carried random pre-ADR-007 identifiers minted by
the retired local hub, which C-06 refused as stale references. Deriving from
the canonical record id takes no identity from anything.

Refs CUST-WP-0068-T06

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 2583210@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: f2bff2d5-e9b2-4338-92ca-10282a927006

history/260807-attack-darvo-stress-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+# ATTACK / DARVO relevance — design challenge and H1
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-07 (measurement 2026-08-08)  
+**Status:** H1 **measured** — reject as baseline; direction kept for H2  
+**Triggers:** [GROUND-RPT-0003](../reports/260807-clay-borg-attack-and-modes.md); inbox triage  
+**Variant:** [`editions/experiments/h1-problem-stress/`](../editions/experiments/h1-problem-stress/)  
+**Measurement:** [GROUND-RPT-0004](../reports/260808-clay-borg-h1-measured.md)  
+**Catalog:** [`editions/CATALOG.md`](../editions/CATALOG.md)  
+**Workplan:** [GROUND-WP-0006](../workplans/GROUND-WP-0006-h1-problem-stress-experiment.md)
+
+---
+
+## 0. The measured gap
+
+clay-borg (RPT-0003): under competent play, **ATTACK never improves** outcomes in any mode, and in 500 competent games **DARVO armed zero times**. Modes themselves differentiate correctly; the driver bug that forced SHARED GROUND is fixed on their side.
+
+So the namesake loop is reachable only by playing badly. That may be intentional (cautionary structure) or a missing Problem → Stress coupling. This note challenges design options **before** promoting any change into baseline `ground-darvo-r0`.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Stress ledger today (baseline r0)
+
+| Source | Who’s stress changes? | Notes |
+|--------|----------------------|--------|
+| **ACT_ATTACK** | **Target** +1 or +2 | **Attacker: no relief.** Cancelled → no change |
+| **SUPPORT** | **Target** −1 or −2 | Bond Support also readies Freedom, cancels DARVO |
+| **GROUND—GR** | **Self** −2 | Readies Freedom; DARVO current stage still fires |
+| **DARVO REVERSE** | **Self** −2; **Focus target** +1 | Blame on target; Protection for self |
+| **Unsolved Problems** | **Nobody** | `unresolved_effect` is empty in `Problems.csv` |
+| **Status / rank** | **Nobody** | No hierarchy stress |
+| Start | All at **2** | |
+
+At Stress 4–5 the rules force the *vocabulary* of ATTACK or GROUND (unless Freedom is spent), but ordinary ATTACK is not a stress valve—only GROUND—GR and receiving Support (and later REVERSE) are.
+
+**Implication:** Stress is almost a **closed social subsystem**. If nobody attacks, stress drifts mid/down; DARVO never arms. clay-borg’s zero-DARVO result is the ledger working as printed, not a simulator bug.
+
+INTENT principle (“DARVO must sometimes work **locally** — short-term advantage, delayed relational cost”) is therefore under-served: the only local advantage is REVERSE’s package, gated on already being at Stress 5 for three rounds of sequence.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Design directions (challenged)
+
+### 2.1 Stress from stuck problems + outward projection
+
+**Strong:** Restores Problem → Individual link in the four-layer model. Makes GROUND regulation under load; Support anti-cascade; DARVO “I can’t hold this.”
+
+**Challenge:**
+
+- Today **ATTACK and Blame do not reduce the projector’s stress**. Without a rules change, “forced projection” is flavor on a move that still does not help the projector.
+- Passive problem ticks can flatten into always-DARVO or kill group thresholds (already ~75–83% of available points).
+- Personal / Bond-attached problems are powerful and already listed as **extensions** (`EXT_PERSONAL`) — keep out of first core experiment.
+- Even with self-soothe, **E04** still punishes Bond-breaking; mode-aware evaluation is required.
+
+### 2.2 Hierarchy / competitive status stress
+
+**Strong:** Injects stress without anyone choosing ATTACK; natural in semi-coop.
+
+**Challenge:** Leader −stress amplifies Matthew effects; “leading” mid-game is noisy; co-op must not invent early winners; stacking with problem pressure overproduces Stress 5 at 2p.
+
+**Parked** behind H1 (last-place-only semi-coop is the minimal follow-up if H1 under-delivers).
+
+### 2.3 Competence score
+
+**Strong as extension** (follow-through, self-regard). **Wrong tool** for RPT-0003: does not create ATTACK incentive unless it secretly becomes another stress track. **Out of H1.**
+
+---
+
+## 3. Playtest hypothesis H1
+
+> If unsolved shared Problems raise Stress, and high-Stress ATTACK returns a small self-relief, then competent play will sometimes arm DARVO and sometimes select ATTACK, without making always-ATTACK optimal.
+
+### 3.1 Two rule deltas only (relative to `ground-darvo-r0`)
+
+| ID | Rule | Detail |
+|----|------|--------|
+| **H1-A** | Problem pressure | At **Round End**, after Stress clamp step preparation: if **any** Problem still in play is **unclaimed** (face-up, hidden, or Denied), **each player +1 Stress**, then clamp 0–5, then DARVO arm check as today. |
+| **H1-B** | High-stress ATTACK self-soothe | When an **ACT_ATTACK** resolves and is **not cancelled**, if the **attacker’s Stress was ≥ 4 before this Attack’s effects**, the attacker takes **−1 Stress** (then clamp). Target / relation effects unchanged. DARVO-stage extra Attack uses the same Attack resolution (so it can self-soothe too if Stress ≥ 4). |
+
+Unchanged on purpose: thresholds, deal, SOLVE legality, Support, GROUND modes, DARVO stage table, relation slots, starting Stress 2.
+
+### 3.2 Success criteria (compare to RPT-0003 harness)
+
+Under a competent multi-policy panel, same seat counts as RPT-0003 where practical:
+
+1. **DARVO arm rate** non-trivial (target band to refine after first N; not 0/500).
+2. **ATTACK selection** rises for some subpopulation (e.g. Stress ≥ 4) and **raising ATTACK rank** improves at least one objective in some mode/seat cell — not “always attack wins.”
+3. **Group threshold success** does not collapse to “only perfect peaceful play.”
+4. Bond Support and GROUND remain better than DARVO **when regulation holds** — DARVO stays the failure mode, not the dominant strategy.
+
+### 3.3 Explicit non-goals for H1
+
+- No personal / bond-group problem cards.
+- No competence track.
+- No leader/last-place status stress (Idea 2).
+- No silent edit of baseline `point_value` / `required_solution` inside r0.
+- No promotion of H1 into `ground-darvo-r0` until measured utility is accepted.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Rules variation versioning (how we compare experiments)
+
+See full contract: [`editions/CATALOG.md`](../editions/CATALOG.md).
+
+**Summary:**
+
+| Mechanism | Role |
+|-----------|------|
+| **`editions/catalog.yaml` + `CATALOG.md`** | Authoritative **index of selectable packages** (baseline + experiments). Lives on `main`. clay-borg and humans read this to know what can be pinned. |
+| **Directory path** | Selectable unit, e.g. `editions/ground-darvo-r0/`, `editions/experiments/h1-problem-stress/`. Matches clay-borg’s vendor-by-path practice (ADR-0011). |
+| **`variant_id` + `base`** | Stable ids (`ground-darvo-r0`, `h1-problem-stress`); experiments declare inheritance and file-level deltas. |
+| **Git** | Commits/tags pin content digests; optional feature branches for WIP **before** an experiment directory lands on `main`. Branches are **not** the primary selection API (sibling checkout + multi-ref is hostile to clay-borg CI). |
+| **Utility fields** | Catalog rows carry `status`, `utility_estimate`, `decision` (keep / reject / merge-to-baseline / supersede). Updated when measurement lands — not when the idea is written. |
+
+Baseline contract (GROUND-WP-0002 T01) still holds: changing frozen columns inside `ground-darvo-r0` requires a **new revision directory** (`-r1`), not an experiment. Experiments may **copy** and alter rules text/actions; only a later **promote** step rewrites baseline.
+
+---
+
+## 5. clay-borg selection contract
+
+A package is **selectable for simulation** when it appears in `editions/catalog.yaml` with `selectable: true` and a `path`.
+
+Minimum fields clay-borg should read (or we message explicitly):
+
+```yaml
+variant_id: h1-problem-stress
+path: editions/experiments/h1-problem-stress
+base: ground-darvo-r0
+status: experimental
+rules_engine_notes: rules_delta.yaml   # structured deltas if CSV alone is not executable
+```
+
+Engine note: today clay-borg **hardcodes** much of the rules kernel and **vendors** selected CSVs. H1-A/B are **rules-kernel changes**, not Problem table changes. Selecting H1 means:
+
+1. Vendor or overlay the experiment’s changed CSVs for text/provenance, **and**
+2. Implement `rules_delta.yaml` in the kernel (or a feature flag keyed by `variant_id`).
+
+Until (2) exists, H1 is **specified here** and playable at a human table from the experiment package; bulk ATTACK-value re-runs wait on clay-borg.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Exploration order (after H1)
+
+| Step | If… | Then… |
+|------|-----|--------|
+| H1 measured | criteria met | promote candidates into r1 design / keep as optional mode card |
+| H1 measured | DARVO still ~0 | add Idea 2 last-place stress (semi only) as **H2** experiment |
+| H1 measured | always-ATTACK optimal | reject H1-B or gate self-soothe tighter |
+| Later | core loop works | competence / personal problems as extensions |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Decision log
+
+| Date | Decision |
+|------|----------|
+| 2026-08-07 | Do not invent “DARVO-only-from-bad-play is intended” without measurement of H1-class pressure. |
+| 2026-08-07 | First experiment is **H1** (problem pressure + high-stress ATTACK −1). |
+| 2026-08-07 | Versioning = **catalog + directories on main**; git tags pin; branches optional for WIP. |
+| 2026-08-08 | H1 measured (CB-EV-0030/0031 → RPT-0004). **Reject as baseline.** Direction (Problem→Stress) confirmed useful; flat +1/end is a solve-rate tax. H2 must change pressure *shape*, not only re-stack. Baseline finding: non-attacking policies never raise Stress above 2. |
+| 2026-08-08 | **H2 packaged:** scoped stress (personal / bond / global). See [260808-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md](260808-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md). Bond network shares ticks → joint SOLVE incentive. |
+
+## 8. Measurement summary (2026-08-08)
+
+See RPT-0004 for full tables. One-line:
+
+> H1 reaches the seat that will not regulate; under greedy regulation the table stops winning; H1-B is dead code for competent play.

history/260807-inbox-triage-clay-borg.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# Inbox triage — clay-borg messages (2026-08-07)
+
+Four unread messages from `clay-borg-custodian` were processed in one
+pass. Report files already lived under `reports/` (not `workplans/` as
+the message bodies claimed). No kernel or edition change in this pass.
+
+| date | subject | report | action taken |
+|------|---------|--------|--------------|
+| 2026-08-03 | SOLVE ruling as GR-P05 + premise correction | (inline in message) | Acknowledged: GR-P05 matches GROUND-WP-0002 T02; face-down vs hand misdescription does not reopen the ruling |
+| 2026-08-05 | Withdraw GR-E01 4/6/9; U-items collected | [GROUND-RPT-0001](../reports/260805-clay-borg-findings.md) | Acknowledged: confirms WP-0002 T03/T05; no work from us |
+| 2026-08-05 | Difficulty baseline; no threshold proposal | [GROUND-RPT-0002](../reports/260805-clay-borg-difficulty.md) | Receipt noted on [WP-0005](../workplans/GROUND-WP-0005-difficulty-tiers-and-pressure-dial.md); T01 stays `wait` |
+| 2026-08-07 | E03/E04 played; ATTACK value; DARVO never arms | [GROUND-RPT-0003](../reports/260807-clay-borg-attack-and-modes.md) | Receipt noted on [WP-0003](../workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-playtest-semi-and-coalitions.md); design question escalated to human |
+
+## Outstanding human decision
+
+**Is it intended that ATTACK (and therefore DARVO) is unreachable under
+competent play in all three modes?** clay-borg asks this explicitly and
+does not call it a defect. Ground-game has not ruled yet.

history/260808-deal-end-sequences-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+# After H2: deal influx, end conditions, sequence salience
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-08  
+**Context:** H2 measured (RPT-0005) — scoping works; felt “more interesting.”  
+**Status:** design discussion — not yet a packaged variant  
+
+Maintainer questions: (1) fixed problem deal vs random influx; (2) fixed
+5 rounds vs clear-board / stressed-out ends; (3) GROUND/DARVO as sequences
+with significant effect — sim artifact or gameplay gap?
+
+---
+
+## 0. What H2 already proved
+
+- Scoped stress is the right *pressure* shape (all-global control = H1 collapse).
+- DARVO can arm for a seat that still sometimes wins (unlike H1).
+- ATTACK is affordable under H2, still not profitable.
+- Bond joint-SOLVE incentive is **untested by bots** (they do not model scopes).
+
+H2 does **not** yet answer deal variety, pacing, or “do sequences *feel*
+significant.” Those are the next design layer.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Problem deal: start set + random influx
+
+### Current
+
+Fixed deal at setup: Surface + hidden 1..k by seats. Owners assigned once.
+Solution deck is the only ongoing draw (INVESTIGATE draws Solutions).
+
+### Proposal
+
+Keep a **starting set** of Problems, then **random draws** that can add
+personal / bond / global Problems to play (or into a hand that can be
+played/attached).
+
+### Strengths
+
+- Replay variety without new scenarios every time.
+- Fiction: issues *arrive* mid-relationship; hand/draw = what lands on you.
+- Difficulty dial = composition of the **draw bag** (how many personal vs
+  bond vs global), cleaner than fixed priority mapping alone.
+- Supports “my hand gave *me* a personal problem” without full EXT_PERSONAL
+  shadow goals.
+
+### Challenges
+
+| Risk | Mitigation |
+|------|------------|
+| Available points / threshold float mid-game | Threshold as % of *currently in play* claimed target, or score only starting set, or drawn problems are stress-only (no point value) |
+| Global flood rebuilds H1 | Cap globals in bag; max N open globals |
+| Too long / never clears | Soft cap on open Problems; draw only on triggers (missed SOLVE, DENY, Round End if board empty of hidden) |
+| Ownership chaos | Drawn personal → drawer is owner; bond → drawer’s network; global → none |
+| Teach complexity | Phase 1: **draw adds to board face-down**, not a second hand of problems |
+
+### Lean experiment shape (if packaged later)
+
+**H3-deal (sketch):** After setup of Surface + 1–2 starters, remaining scoped
+Problems form a **Pressure deck**. At End of round (or on INVESTIGATE
+miss), draw 0–1 if open unclaimed count < cap. Drawn card enters play
+with scope as printed; owner = drawer or Lead-round-robin.
+
+Do **not** put Problems in the Solution hand first — that collides with
+suit management. Separate “issue arrives” channel is clearer.
+
+---
+
+## 2. End conditions: beyond fixed 5 rounds
+
+### Current
+
+Always 5 rounds, then threshold + mode scoring. Compact (5–15 min) was
+explicit intent (2026-07-30 exploration).
+
+### Why 5 feels arbitrary
+
+It is a **timer**, not a story beat. Under H2 stress, a clear board early
+still forces empty rounds; a meltdown at round 3 still limps to 5.
+
+### Proposal family
+
+| End | Meaning | Risk |
+|-----|---------|------|
+| **A. Board clear** | No unclaimed Problems left → immediate group success check | Short games; INVESTIGATE race |
+| **B. Group break** | All seats at Stress 5 and/or in DARVO → group fail (or “stressed out”) | Need precise definition; soft lock if one seat holds out |
+| **C. Max rounds** | Still a ceiling (4–6) so games terminate | Keeps product length |
+| **Hybrid** | End on A or B, else at round max | Best of both |
+
+### Recommendation
+
+**Hybrid** is the least arbitrary and keeps the product box promise:
+
+1. If **no unclaimed Problems** remain after a round’s Solve → end; apply mode scoring (threshold may be automatic success if all claimed value ≥ threshold, or redefine success as “cleared the table”).
+2. If **collapse**: e.g. every seat is at Stress ≥4 **or** ≥ half the table is in active DARVO → end as **group failure** (SHARED) / no personal win (semi).
+3. Else after **Round Max** (keep 5 or try 6) → current threshold scoring.
+
+“All stressed out” as pure unanimous Stress 5 is harsh and rare; prefer
+**majority in DARVO** or **no seat below Stress 4** as the fail line.
+
+Threshold vs clear-board: if success = clear all, thresholds become
+redundant; if success = clear *enough*, keep threshold and treat early
+clear as auto-meet if points ≥ threshold.
+
+---
+
+## 3. GROUND and DARVO as sequences — sim vs design
+
+### What the rules actually are
+
+| System | In r0 today | “Sequence”? |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|
+| **DARVO** | DENY → ATTACK → REVERSE over **consecutive rounds** once armed at Stress 5 | **Yes** — three mandatory stages |
+| **GROUND** | One action, **one of three modes** (GR / OU / ND) chosen after reveal | **No** — not a multi-round sequence |
+| INTENT / early design | GROUND as G-R-O-U-N-D practices; DARVO as binding multi-turn chain | Aspirational / partial |
+
+So if the desire is “GROUND is also a sequence,” that is **missing design**,
+not a clay-borg bug.
+
+### Why sequences feel weak in the simulator
+
+**Mostly gameplay + policy, not “sim is broken.”**
+
+1. **Competent bots regulate.** Greedy GROUNDs when gated → Stress often
+   never hits 5 → **no DARVO stage chain to watch**. H2 reactive shows
+   arms; greedy play will not.
+2. **Full DARVO chain needs three rounds.** With max 5, a late arm gets
+   DENY only (or DENY+ATTACK). REVERSE’s drama is rare.
+3. **Exits are strong.** Bond Support cancels the stage and ends the
+   sequence; GROUND—GR lets current stage fire then ends the rest. So
+   sequences are designed to be **interruptible** — good for teaching,
+   bad for “unstoppable set piece” feel.
+4. **GROUND modes are situational.** GR (−2 Stress) is the default bot
+   use. OU/ND only matter if DENY/Attack/Blame already happened — rare
+   under peaceful greedy play. Sim never “chooses the dramatic mode.”
+5. **Bots optimize scores, not narrative.** Sequence significance is a
+   human-felt property; aggregates report arms and wins, not “that REVERSE
+   mattered.”
+
+**Where the sim *is* limited:** no multi-seat-aware bond motivation; no
+felt-play; watching greedy H2 underplays DARVO by construction.
+
+### If we want sequences to *matter* more (gameplay levers)
+
+| Lever | Effect |
+|-------|--------|
+| Longer max rounds or early arm | More full DENY→…→REVERSE completions |
+| Softer exits (Bond Support cancels only *this* stage, not whole sequence) | Harder to snuff DARVO |
+| DARVO stages alter scoring more (Blame already −1; DENY already blocks points) | Make completion costly for the *group* |
+| GROUND as optional **multi-step practice** (e.g. commit GR this round, may chain OU next if still regulating) | True GROUND sequence — large design change |
+| Scenario “Focus cards” that force a stage | Guaranteed set piece for teaching |
+
+Prefer measuring **full-sequence completion rate** (DENY+ATTACK+REVERSE all
+fired) under H2 before changing exits — if completion ≈ 0 even when arms
+> 0, the chain is too long for the clock.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Suggested order (do not stack into one silent H2 edit)
+
+1. **Keep H2 stress routing** (`keep-as-experiment`; candidate for r1 core).
+2. **Table smoke** for bond joint SOLVE (criterion 4).
+3. Package **one** next experiment, not three:
+   - either **H3-end** hybrid end conditions on top of H2, **or**
+   - **H3-deal** pressure-deck influx on top of H2,
+   - measure sequence completion rate as a side metric either way.
+4. Only then consider GROUND-as-sequence or DARVO exit tuning.
+
+Promoting H2 into baseline before deal/end redesign is optional; stress
+routing can be kept even if deal changes later.

history/260808-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# H2 — scoped problem stress (personal / bond / global)
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-08  
+**Status:** experiment open — packaged as selectable variant  
+**Parent:** [H1 design + measurement](260807-attack-darvo-stress-design.md), [RPT-0004](../reports/260808-clay-borg-h1-measured.md)  
+**Variant:** [`editions/experiments/h2-scoped-problem-stress/`](../editions/experiments/h2-scoped-problem-stress/)  
+**Workplan:** [GROUND-WP-0007](../workplans/GROUND-WP-0007-h2-scoped-problem-stress.md)
+
+---
+
+## 0. Why H2 (after H1)
+
+H1 applied **+1 Stress to every seat** whenever any Problem remained unclaimed. Competent play regulated (GROUND); Stress plateaus ~3; SOLVE bandwidth died; group wins collapsed at 3p+. Direction (Problem → Stress) was right; **equal global tax** was wrong.
+
+H2 keeps inbound problem pressure but **routes** it:
+
+| scope | who pays | design role |
+|-------|----------|-------------|
+| **personal** | one owner | asymmetric load; someone can approach DARVO while others SOLVE |
+| **bond** | Bond network of owner | shared load → shared **incentive to SOLVE** that card |
+| **global** | all seats | rare systemic pressure (Surface only in this package) |
+
+Difficulty dial (later / WP-0005): vary how many of each scope are in the deal. This package’s first recipe uses **priority mapping** so seat band already changes mix (no bond card at 2p).
+
+---
+
+## 1. Bond scope — the interesting bit
+
+Bond today is almost pure upside (stress down, cancel DARVO). Bond-scope problems add a **joint liability**:
+
+- While the card stays unclaimed, **every bonded partner** takes the End tick.
+- **Any** seat may SOLVE it (matching suit) — including a non-owner altruist.
+- So the network is incentivised to **clear the shared load**, not only to Support through the crisis.
+
+That is the hypothesis to protect in measurement:
+
+> Do Bond networks clear bond-scoped Problems faster / more often than equivalent personal cards, and does that keep group success above H1’s floor?
+
+**Risk to watch:** players avoid Bonding to shed liability. If Bond rate collapses and DARVO rises, magnitude is still wrong (or bond tick needs to be softer than personal).
+
+**Network definition:** seats reachable from the **owner** by Bond edges only. Rivalries do not connect. Degree 0 → personal behaviour.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Package rules (summary)
+
+See `rules_delta.yaml` for machine form.
+
+1. **H2-SCOPE** — `Problems.csv` column `stress_scope`; mapping by `hidden_priority` 0→global, 1–2 personal, 3 bond, 4 personal.  
+2. **H2-OWN** — owners for personal/bond: ascending priority among in-play non-global, round-robin from Lead.  
+3. **H2-A** — Round End: each unclaimed Problem → +1 Stress to each seat in its scope; then clamp; then DARVO arm as r0.  
+4. **H2-SOLVE** — claim rights unchanged by scope (anyone with suit).  
+
+**Not included:** H1-A, H1-B, owner-only solve, shadow goals.
+
+**Thresholds / deal depth / start Stress 2:** unchanged from r0.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Hypothesis and success criteria
+
+> Scoped pressure creates stress **variance** and occasional DARVO under mixed policies **without** driving greedy SHARED group wins to ~0 at 3–4p; bond cards create joint SOLVE incentive inside Bond networks.
+
+| # | criterion | target (directional) |
+|---|-----------|----------------------|
+| 1 | Group success (greedy SHARED, 3–4p) | **Well above H1’s 0**; not required to match baseline |
+| 2 | Stress variance | max−min Stress across seats **higher** than baseline and H1-greedy |
+| 3 | DARVO | non-zero for some policy that still sometimes wins; not only pure reactive-never-wins |
+| 4 | Bond cards | among bond-scoped unclaimed time, networks show elevated SOLVE rate on those cards vs personal (or qualitative report) |
+| 5 | Control | if all scopes forced global, H1-like collapse returns (optional A/B) |
+
+Instrument caveats from CB-EV-0030/0031 still apply: plural panel; report sample-specific vs invariant; no felt-play substitute.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Safety / scope of fiction
+
+Cards keep existing scenario language (deadline, ownership, overload). No new trauma-personal content. Full `EXT_PERSONAL` (shadow goals, expose, win rewrite) stays **out**.
+
+---
+
+## 5. Decision log
+
+| Date | Decision |
+|------|----------|
+| 2026-08-08 | H1 reject-as-baseline; spawn H2 scoped stress |
+| 2026-08-08 | Bond = full Bond network of owner; SOLVE unrestricted by owner |
+| 2026-08-08 | Surface global; one bond card (priority 3) enters at 3p+ |
+| 2026-08-08 | Do not stack H1-B in H2 until scoped pressure is measured alone |

history/260808-mode-playtest-engine-notes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Mode playtest notes — engine (GR-E03 / GR-E04)
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-08  
+**Workplan:** [GROUND-WP-0003](../workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-playtest-semi-and-coalitions.md)  
+**Source:** [GROUND-RPT-0003](../reports/260807-clay-borg-attack-and-modes.md) (clay-borg attack-value panel + full-mode playouts)  
+**Variant:** `ground-darvo-r0` (baseline)
+
+These notes close the **engine** half of WP-0003 (“human table *or* full
+engine playout”). They are not a substitute for human felt-play if we want
+table texture later; they do answer “do the modes score to the end, and
+what does ATTACK do?”
+
+---
+
+## Runs covered
+
+| Task | Mode | Seats | Evidence |
+|------|------|------:|----------|
+| T01 | MODE_SEMI | 2p | attack-value cells; modes playable to scoring |
+| T02 | MODE_SEMI | 3–4p (and 6p) | same panel |
+| T03 | MODE_COALITION | 2p | same |
+| T04 | MODE_COALITION | 3–4p (and 6p) | same |
+| — | MODE_COOP | all | control cells |
+
+**Identical-play differentiation (seed 1, 4p, 37 commands):**
+
+| Mode | Winners |
+|------|---------|
+| SHARED GROUND | all four (mastery 4) |
+| COMMON PROBLEM (semi) | **P3** (top personal) |
+| BONDED COALITIONS | **P1+P2** (best Bond network) |
+
+Encoding of Modes.csv behaves as three distinct games.
+
+**Driver note (clay-borg):** GR-E03/E04 were previously unplayed because
+`cb-play` forced SHARED GROUND — fixed on their side; not a modes defect.
+
+---
+
+## Outcomes checklist
+
+### Shared total vs threshold / personal scores
+
+- Group success rates under “never attack” competent-ish policy (wins per
+  200 games, 2/3/4/6 seats):
+  - SHARED: 132 / 165 / 190 / 200  
+  - SEMI (seat-0 among winners framing differs; personal race present): lower individual “among winners” counts  
+  - COALITION: high “among winners” when not attacking (network still intact)
+- Exact seed-by-seed personal score tables were not shipped in RPT-0003;
+  mode differentiation and ATTACK value are the load-bearing results.
+
+### Stress / DARVO
+
+- Under competent non-attacking play on baseline r0: **DARVO armed 0 times**
+  in the RPT-0003 competent aggregate (500 games cited).
+- Later CB-EV-0031: peak Stress *held* never exceeds start **2** when policies
+  never select ATTACK — Stress only falls. Inbound pressure is ATTACK-only
+  for those policies.
+
+### ATTACK value (all three modes)
+
+| mode | never | sometimes | always |
+|------|------:|----------:|-------:|
+| SHARED | 132/165/190/200 | identical | 0 |
+| SEMI | 59/52/48/44 | 59/52/48/**34** | 0 |
+| COALITION | 131/134/132/116 | **59/52/48/34** | 0 |
+
+*(2/3/4/6 seats.)* ATTACK never improves outcomes; in coalitions it roughly
+halves “among winners.” E04 attacking numbers match E03 when Bonds break
+(GR-A07 + network scoring).
+
+### Underdetermined rules exposed?
+
+- **No new U-items** from mode scoring itself.
+- **Design gap (not rules ambiguity):** ATTACK/DARVO irrelevant under
+  competent baseline play — tracked experimentally via WP-0006 (H1,
+  reject) → WP-0007 (H2 scoped stress, in flight).
+
+---
+
+## Follow-ups
+
+| Item | Where |
+|------|--------|
+| Restore inbound Stress without flat table tax | H2 `h2-scoped-problem-stress` |
+| Human felt-play of semi/coalition (optional) | residual note below; not blocking |
+| Opening-action economy (INVESTIGATE first) | clay-borg offer; deferred |
+
+**Residual (optional, not a new workplan unless scheduled):** one human
+2p semi and one 3–4p coalition session for “feels like one game” texture.
+Engine checklist for T01–T04 is satisfied.

history/260808-modular-variants.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Composable rules modules by aspect (catalog schema 2)
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-08  
+**Status:** adopted as catalog contract  
+**Catalog:** [`editions/CATALOG.md`](../editions/CATALOG.md), [`editions/catalog.yaml`](../editions/catalog.yaml)  
+**Aspect map:** [`editions/ASPECTS.md`](../editions/ASPECTS.md)  
+**Simulator research:** clay-borg `research/CB-RES-0010-game-aspects-and-design-space.md`
+
+---
+
+## Decision
+
+Rules variations are **independent modules on named aspects** (design
+dimensions), not only monolithic experiments. Each module can be measured
+**alone** or in a **profile** (explicit combination).
+
+| Aspect | Examples |
+|--------|----------|
+| `problem_stress` | none / flat_any_open / scoped |
+| `attack_relief` | none / self_soothe_ge4 |
+| `end_condition` | fixed_rounds_5 / hybrid_clear_collapse (proposed) |
+| `problem_deal` | fixed_setup / pressure_deck (proposed) |
+
+Full aspect inventory (including fixed-in-r0 dimensions): **ASPECTS.md**.
+
+H1 becomes profile `h1` = flat + attack soothe.  
+H2 becomes profile `h2` = scoped only.  
+New work prefers new modules + profiles over `experiments/mega-bundle`.
+
+**Terminology:** *aspect* replaces earlier *axis* in human docs; YAML field
+is `aspect:`.
+
+## Why
+
+Maintainer: end-of-game, setup, dealing, stress-boosters should be
+tryable alone and in combination. Monolithic H1/H2 hid that H1 mixed two
+aspects and that end/deal work should not force a rewrite of stress routing.
+
+## clay-borg
+
+Resolve `profile` or `modules[]` → apply deltas in catalog **aspect**
+order; record full module list in game state / replays. Evolve selection
+UI and panels around **aspects × modules × profiles** (CB-RES-0010).

history/260809-scn02-mechanical-distinct.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# SCN_02 re-tuned for mechanical distinctness
+
+**Date:** 2026-08-09  
+**Source:** GROUND-RPT-0006 / ADHOC-2026-08-08-T02  
+
+clay-borg measured SCN_01 and SCN_02 as identical on suit and value at
+every priority (only titles differed). That was not intentional.
+
+## Change (SCN_02 only; titles kept)
+
+| priority | was | now | title (unchanged) |
+|---------:|-----|-----|-------------------|
+| 0 Surface | Repair | Repair | Shared Task Left Undone |
+| 1 | Clarify | **Change** | Different Standards |
+| 2 | Boundary | **Clarify** | Invisible Workload |
+| 3 | Repair | **Boundary** | Resentment Never Raised |
+| 4 | Change | **Repair** | No Ownership Routine |
+
+Point values **unchanged** (2/2/2/3/3). Thresholds unchanged.
+
+## 2p suit multiset (Surface + H1–2)
+
+| board | suits |
+|-------|--------|
+| SCN_01 | Repair, Clarify, Boundary |
+| SCN_02 | Repair, **Change**, Clarify |
+| SCN_03 | Boundary, Clarify, Repair |
+| SCN_04 | Repair, Clarify, Repair (harder) |
+
+SCN_02 is no longer a twin of SCN_01. Panels may treat four scenarios as
+four mechanical boards again (within suit/value space).
+
+Fiction note: “Different Standards” as **Change** reads as revising the
+shared standard; “Resentment” as **Boundary** as needing a limit — light
+theme stretch, acceptable for r0 playtest.