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
This commit is contained in:
parent
9458d0256a
commit
b5730f280b
55 changed files with 2937 additions and 150 deletions
171
reports/260808-clay-borg-boards-and-modes.md
Normal file
171
reports/260808-clay-borg-boards-and-modes.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -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. |
|
||||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue