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/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.