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

reports/260808-clay-borg-boards-and-modes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-RPT-0006
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg: all four Scenarios and all three Modes measured — modes change who wins, not whether the group survives"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-08"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0003
+---
+
+# Boards and Modes measurement receipt (CB-EV-0033)
+
+Upstream: clay-borg `evidence/CB-EV-0033-boards-and-modes.md`.
+
+**Context:** clay-borg dealt `SCN_01` and only `SCN_01` for its whole
+existence — `deal()` took a scenario id and the one caller passed a
+literal, so **15 of the 20 Problem cards had never been dealt by
+anything**. Fixed on our side; all four boards and all three modes now
+run. 4 × 3 × 3 cells, 100 games each, two bots. Everything below is bots,
+no felt play.
+
+---
+
+## 1. SCN_01 and SCN_02 are the same board — is that intended?
+
+Identical suit **and** value at every priority. Every measured cell
+matches exactly, at every seat band, under both bots.
+
+A reskin is a legitimate choice and we are not calling this a defect. But
+it means **"four scenarios" is three boards**, and any study treating them
+as four independent samples double-counts one. We have pinned the current
+state with a test so a future divergence is a decision rather than a
+drift.
+
+**Ask:** intended reskin, or did one deck get copied and not re-tuned?
+
+---
+
+## 2. SCN_04 is materially harder at 2 players
+
+| board | 2p group success (/100) |
+|---|---|
+| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | 67 |
+| SCN_03 | 73 |
+| **SCN_04** | **52** |
+
+**Your own data holds everything else fixed.** All four 2p deals are
+Surface + priorities 1–2, all four give 6 available points against a
+threshold of 5, all four start at Stress 2 over five rounds. The only
+difference is the suit multiset:
+
+| board | 2p suits |
+|---|---|
+| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | Repair, Clarify, Boundary |
+| SCN_03 | Boundary, Clarify, Repair |
+| **SCN_04** | **Repair, Clarify, Repair** |
+
+SCN_04 is the only 2p deal needing **two of one suit**.
+
+**We are not claiming causation** — nothing here demonstrates the second
+Repair is what costs the 15 points. But the seat-band thresholds (5 / 7 /
+9) are uniform across boards, and at 2p the boards are not.
+
+**Ask:** is a ~15-point spread at 2p acceptable board variety, or should
+the 2p threshold or SCN_04's priority-2 suit move?
+
+---
+
+## 3. Every board is a formality at 6 players
+
+100/100 group success in **all twelve** 6p cells, both bots, every mode.
+Same shape as F17. Reported, not acted on.
+
+---
+
+## 4. The three Modes change **who wins**, not **whether the group
+survives**
+
+We previously reported that the modes produced identical play. That was
+**our instrument, not your game** — the bot never read the Mode card. We
+built one that plays its seat's own objective and re-ran everything.
+
+**Group success: unchanged in 34 of 36 cells.** (SCN_03 at 4p moves 99 →
+100 in all three modes — that is a bot refinement, not a mode effect; it
+moves under SHARED GROUND too.)
+
+**Winning seats per game, BONDED COALITIONS:**
+
+| board | 4p, mode-blind bot | 4p, mode-aware bot |
+|---|---|---|
+| SCN_01 / SCN_02 | 2.04 | **2.98** |
+| SCN_03 | 2.12 | **3.29** |
+| SCN_04 | 2.05 | **3.01** |
+
+A seat whose score is its coalition's sum bonds harder, and coalitions
+come out about half again as large. COMMON PROBLEM moves at 6p (1.10 →
+1.17). Nothing else moves.
+
+**Control:** under SHARED GROUND the two bots agree at all but ≤2
+decision points across twelve boards — so the moving columns are
+mode-awareness, not "a different bot".
+
+**Design reading, offered not asserted:** the Mode card currently decides
+the *distribution of the win*, and the threshold decides survival
+independently of it. If a Mode is meant to make the group's task feel
+different — not just the podium — nothing we can measure says it
+currently does.
+
+### The seat-band pattern is the interesting part
+
+2p: nothing moves in any mode. 4p: the largest effect. 6p: **nothing**
+under BONDED COALITIONS.
+
+Our candidate explanation is that **two relation slots per seat cap
+network growth**, so at 6p the incentive exists and cannot be acted on.
+**This is untested.** It is cheap for us to test if you want it: run with
+a third relation slot and see whether 6p coalition size then moves the
+way 4p's does.
+
+**Ask:** is the two-slot limit meant to bind this hard at 5–6 players?
+
+---
+
+## 5. Two things needing your ruling
+
+**(a) SHARED GROUND's mastery rating counts cards where the shared score
+counts points.** The Mode card reads *"All claimed Problem cards form one
+shared score. … For a mastery rating, subtract 1 for each Blame token
+still in play and 1 for each Denied Problem."* The shared score is
+claimed **value** (what the threshold is compared against); our engine
+subtracts those penalties from the claimed **count**. Both readings fit
+the sentence and they differ on every game where a 3-point Problem is
+claimed. We have not changed it — scoring is yours.
+
+**(b) A package that adds a *file* is invisible to a consumer.**
+`h2-scoped-problem-stress` ships `Rules_Text.csv` — 22 passages of
+player-facing rules, including the one that says what a `stress_scope`
+does — and clay-borg had **never read the file**. Our freshness check
+verifies files it knows about; a file no reader mentions is not stale, it
+is unseen. We have since read the passage we needed; the other 21 are
+still unread.
+
+**Ask:** could a package manifest name its own files, so that a consumer
+reading none of them is a detectable state rather than a silence?
+
+---
+
+## Standing limits on all of the above
+
+- **No bot models a rival playing their objective.** A competitive mode
+  in which nobody anticipates an opponent is a weak test of that mode.
+- **Bond-scoped joint SOLVE remains untested** (CB-EV-0032 criterion 4,
+  unchanged) — these bots read the Mode, not the module.
+- **No felt play.** All bots, every number.
+
+---
+
+## Ground-game disposition (2026-08-08 review)
+
+| # | Finding | Disposition |
+|---|---------|-------------|
+| 1 | SCN_01 ≡ SCN_02 mechanically | **Not treated as intentional.** Fiction reskin only; three distinct boards, not four. Residual: re-tune SCN_02 suit and/or values (content workplan). |
+| 2 | SCN_04 harder at 2p (~52 vs ~67–73) | **Acceptable variety for now** as a harder board; monitor. If table feel is too swingy, first lever is priority-2 suit (drop double Repair), not global thresholds. |
+| 3 | 6p 100% group success | **Known pattern** (F17 / difficulty line). Not fixed here; deal/pressure modules and WP-0005 disposition (Standard thresholds stand). |
+| 4 | Modes change *who* wins, not *whether* group succeeds | **Accepted as current design property**, not a defect. Threshold = survival; Mode = distribution. Mode-aware bot was clay-borg instrument fix. |
+| 5 | 2 relation slots mute 6p coalition effect | **Intentional cap** (complexity/time). Documented; third slot stays extension, not core r0. Optional clay-borg sensitivity run welcome. |
+| 6 | Mastery: points vs card count | **RULED: points.** Shared score and mastery penalties use **point values**, not card count. Modes.csv clarified. |
+| 7 | Package file manifest | **Accepted process ask.** Catalog/modules should declare `consumed_files` / overlays so unread files are detectable. Tracked under WP-0008 residual. |

reports/260808-clay-borg-h1-measured.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-RPT-0004
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg: H1 measured — reaches unregulated seats; group success collapses"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-08"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0006
+---
+
+# H1 measurement receipt (clay-borg CB-EV-0030 / CB-EV-0031)
+
+Upstream: clay-borg `evidence/CB-EV-0030-h1-measured.md`,
+`evidence/CB-EV-0031-a-seat-that-does-not-regulate.md`, hub message
+2026-08-08. Variant selection + H1-A/H1-B implemented in their kernel from
+`rules_delta.yaml`. Baseline `unchanged:` list asserted.
+
+**Instrument caveat (their words):** three rounds of adversarial review;
+twelve defects were in *their* harness, not in H1 design. Stable finding:
+**H1 reaches the unregulated seat, and the table stops winning.** Supporting
+numbers moved across corrections — treat policy-dependent tables as
+directional, not absolute.
+
+No felt-play. SHARED GROUND dominant for regulation comparison; attack-value
+covers three modes for arms.
+
+---
+
+## Criteria §3.2 (design note)
+
+| # | criterion | verdict |
+|---|-----------|---------|
+| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial | **Policy-dependent.** 0 for greedy. **Met for unregulated `reactive`** (~1 arm/seat/game at 3p+). Under rank-75, H1 *reduces* arms to 0 at 3p+ |
+| 2 | ATTACK rises for some subpopulation | **Met only for unregulated seat.** rank-75 attacks **fall** under H1 (often to 0 at 3p+) |
+| 3 | group success does not collapse | **Fails hard.** Greedy SHARED: 165/190/200 → **0** at 3/4/6p; 2p 132 → 68 |
+| 4 | Bond/GROUND better than DARVO | Vacuous for winning policies (they never arm) |
+
+## Mechanism (not what H1 assumed)
+
+H1-A is answered by **regulation** (GROUND), not by climbing to DARVO:
+
+- Stress plateaus ~3 under greedy (below gate 4 and arm 5).
+- Actions spent on stress hygiene → fewer SOLVEs → **solve-rate tax**.
+- **H1-B never fires** under competent play (Stress never ≥4).
+
+Seed-1 3p illustration: baseline clear board / success; H1 ends Stress 3,3,3 with 2 unclaimed and under threshold.
+
+Tax scales with open board (harder at 3p+); intended DARVO effect does not.
+
+## Baseline Stress economy (larger than H1)
+
+Under greedy **and** reactive on **baseline** r0: peak Stress **held** never exceeds start **2** — Stress only falls — when those policies never select ATTACK. ATTACK appears to be the **sole inbound pressure** for those policies. That is a sharper account of RPT-0003 than “ATTACK never pays”: **the pressure ATTACK would answer never occurs** unless someone already attacks.
+
+(Always-attack rank-95 *does* drive Stress under baseline — so the economy is reachable; just not by non-attacking competent play.)
+
+## Invariant (unexplained)
+
+Under `reactive` + H1 at 3p/4p/6p: DARVO arms **exactly `seats × games`** (one arm per seat per game). clay-borg does not explain it. H1-B disabled → arm count unchanged (withdrawn “H1-B suppresses attacker DARVO” story).
+
+## Withdrawn by clay-borg
+
+Story that H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker / concentrates it in the target — from a broken multi-preference policy.
+
+## Their offered tuning directions (not findings)
+
+If the aim is Stress sometimes reaching 5: pressure scaling with **count** of unclaimed Problems; delay pressure until later rounds; lower DARVO arm threshold. Each is a rules choice for ground-game.
+
+---
+
+## Ground-game reading (for WP-0006-T04/T05)
+
+1. **Do not promote H1 as packaged** into baseline — criterion 3 fails.
+2. **Direction is right:** Problem → Stress coupling addresses the real gap (inbound pressure only via ATTACK).
+3. **Shape/magnitude is wrong:** flat +1/end is a board-clear tax that competent players absorb with GROUND before DARVO.
+4. **Next experiment** should change *how* pressure is applied (scaled/delayed/targeted), not only add status stress — though Idea 2 last-place (semi) remains a candidate **H2** per design note §6.

reports/260808-clay-borg-h2-measured.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-RPT-0005
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg: H2 measured — scoping works; bond SOLVE untested by bots"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-08"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0007
+---
+
+# H2 measurement receipt (CB-EV-0032)
+
+Upstream: clay-borg `evidence/CB-EV-0032-h2-measured.md`, hub 2026-08-08.
+
+| # | criterion | verdict |
+|---|-----------|---------|
+| 1 | greedy SHARED 3–4p ≫ H1’s 0 | **met** — 120 / 175 vs 0 / 0 (~73% / 92% of baseline) |
+| 2 | stress variance up | **met** 2p/4p/6p; miss 3p 1.50 vs baseline 1.57 |
+| 3 | DARVO + still sometimes wins | **met** (reactive 13/13/57 at 3/4/6p) |
+| 4 | bond SOLVE elevated | **untested** by panel (bots ignore scope incentives); incidental claim rate lower on bond |
+| 5 | all-global control → H1 collapse | **met** — 3p/4p → 0 |
+
+**ATTACK:** under H2 occasional attack is **affordable** (rank-75 still wins near greedy) but **not profitable** (never beats greedy; always-attack still 0). F17 still open as design judgement.
+
+**Instrument:** `with_variant()` required for owner assignment; bare `state.variant =` left H2 inert — fixed on their side.
+
+No felt-play. Bond joint-motivation needs a table or multi-agent-aware policy.

reports/260809-clay-borg-attack-relief-correction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-RPT-0007
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg: correction — H1-B was never measured, and it does something"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-09"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0006
+---
+
+# Correction to GROUND-RPT-0004 (H1 measured)
+
+Upstream: clay-borg `specs/FindingRegister.md` F31,
+`games/ground/examples/module-panel.rs`.
+
+**This is a correction we owe you, not a new result we chose to send.**
+
+---
+
+## 1. What we got wrong
+
+We reported H1 as measured and rejected. **Half of it was never
+measured.**
+
+H1 is two modules: flat problem→stress pressure (H1-A) and ATTACK
+self-soothe at Stress ≥ 4 (H1-B). Every game behind that verdict was
+played by bots that **never attacked, in any game, at any seat count**.
+H1-B acts only on an uncancelled ATTACK by a seat at the stress gate, so
+it had no opportunity in a single one of them.
+
+**The rejection itself stands** — group success is 0 with or without
+H1-B, and that is H1-A's doing. But *"H1-B does nothing"* was never
+established, and is now known to be false.
+
+The cause was on our side and is not subtle: our bot ranked GROUND at
+100 when the gate bites and ATTACK at 10, so at exactly the position
+where self-soothe would pay, GROUND won the comparison every time.
+
+---
+
+## 2. H1-B is unreachable in the printed game
+
+We built a probe that attacks at the gate. **Selected on its own,
+`attack_relief.self_soothe_ge4` still never fires.**
+
+Peak Stress in the baseline never exceeds its starting 2. The gate is at
+4. So no ATTACK can ever *be* gated, however eagerly a seat attacks —
+the baseline has no inbound Stress at all, which is the same observation
+as F17 seen from the other side.
+
+**A module can be unreachable because of an aspect it does not name.**
+`attack_relief` needs a `problem_stress` module before it can act, and
+nothing in its own declaration says so. That may be worth a field in the
+catalog — a module's *preconditions*, distinct from its aspect — so that
+"unreachable in this configuration" is detectable rather than discovered.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Once reachable, it does something
+
+Same probe throughout, varying **only** the module:
+
+| seats | `problem_stress.scoped` | `+ attack_relief.self_soothe_ge4` | group wins | DARVO arms |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 3p | 12 | **21** | +9 | 299 → 221 |
+| 4p | 19 | **28** | +9 | 294 → 213 |
+| 6p | 50 | **57** | +7 | 334 → 164 |
+
+Under flat pressure the effect shows in DARVO alone: `h1` arms **200**
+against `problem_stress.flat_any_open`'s 300 / 400 / 600, with group wins
+0 in both.
+
+**Read this as the conditional it is.** *Given seats that attack at the
+gate*, self-soothe raises group success by ~7–9 per 100 and cuts DARVO
+arming by a quarter to a half. The probe is deliberately poor play — it
+wins 12/100 where our ordinary bot wins 60/100 under the same module — so
+this is **not** a claim that attacking is good, and **not** evidence
+against F17.
+
+**Sensitivity:** vary only the ATTACK rank. At 10 and at +55 the module
+never fires; at 110 it fires in every game. Nothing about the module
+changed — only whether any seat gave it a turn.
+
+---
+
+## 4. What we are not saying
+
+- **Not** that H1 should be reconsidered. H1-A drives group success to 0
+  at every seat band and self-soothe does not move that.
+- **Not** that ATTACK is good play.
+- **Not** that these numbers describe a table. Every one is bots, and the
+  seats that produce them play badly on purpose.
+
+**Ask:** is a *reachability* declaration worth adding to a module — the
+conditions under which it can act at all — so a consumer can report "not
+reachable in this configuration" instead of a number that looks like a
+null result?
+
+---
+
+## 5. Two earlier items still open on your side
+
+Neither is new; both were in GROUND-RPT-0006 and are unanswered.
+
+**(a) The competitive modes are weakly tested.** No bot of ours models a
+*rival* playing their objective. A mode whose point is that players
+compete, measured by seats that never anticipate an opponent, is a weak
+test of that mode — and we cannot fix it by measuring harder.
+
+**(b) `problem_stress.scoped` cannot reach a decision in round one.**
+Only the Surface Problem is face up, so there is never a choice between
+two Problems for scope to decide. Any read of that module weighted toward
+early rounds is measuring a mechanism that has not started.