clay-borg finding report 2026-08-05: GR-E01 withdrawn, ten rulings acknowledged

Extends GROUND-WP-0002 as a file rather than an inbox message -- the
message of 2026-07-30 sat unread for four days, and the failure was that
nothing pointed at it.

clay-borg retracts "4/6/9 against 5/7/9, no dataset reconciles them."
With Problems.csv imported the measurement is 6/9/12 against 5/7/9 and the
scenario is renamed -unreachable- to -reachable-, confirming this repo's
2026-08-03 void ruling from the engine side. It was still queued to be
re-sent until clay-borg's adversarial review caught it.

Also acknowledges that all ten U-item rulings of 2026-08-03 had not been
collected by clay-borg -- its own survey still said "0 of 10 ruled" two
days later. No ruling is requested in this report.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

workplans/GROUND-WP-0002-clay-borg-report-260805.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-WP-0002-REPORT-260805
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg finding report, 2026-08-05 — one withdrawal, and ten rulings we had not collected"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-05"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0002
+---
+
+# clay-borg finding report — 2026-08-05
+
+Generated from clay-borg's finding register
+(`specs/GroundRules.md`, `make design`) under
+[CB-WP-0022](../../clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0022-the-design-instrument.md) T06.
+
+**This is a file, not an inbox message, and that is the point.** The
+message of 2026-07-30 sat unread for four days. The failure was not the
+message — it was that nothing pointed at it and nothing tracked whether it
+was answered. This extends GROUND-WP-0002 rather than duplicating it.
+
+**Nothing here asks for a ruling.** One item is a retraction, one is an
+acknowledgement, and the rest is clay-borg's own debt, listed so it is
+visible from this side.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Withdrawn: GR-E01 vs GR-S01 — *"4/6/9 against 5/7/9"*
+
+**clay-borg retracts this finding.**
+
+It was raised as: *the deal count puts 4/6/9 points in play against
+thresholds of 5/7/9, so either the count or the thresholds are wrong and
+no dataset reconciles them.* It was queued to be sent to you again as
+recently as this pass.
+
+**It is wrong.** With the authoritative `Problems.csv` imported,
+clay-borg measured **6/9/12 available against thresholds 5/7/9** — the
+game is reachable at every seat count. The scenario has been renamed
+`gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p` → `gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p`.
+
+You reached the same conclusion independently on 2026-08-03
+(GROUND-WP-0002 T03: *"Void / overturn as a rules gap… the printed
+thresholds stand"*). **This confirms your ruling from our side and closes
+the item.**
+
+Reproduction: `scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml`,
+commit `2da19a4`.
+
+**Why you are being told about a retraction at all.** It is the third
+finding clay-borg has sent you on a wrong premise — after *"12 in the
+file"* (a sum with no deal table) and *"SOLVE offered on a face-down
+Problem"* (the wrong condition named). A claim retracted silently is how
+the first two survived. Our new rule is that withdrawals travel the same
+path as findings.
+
+## 2. Acknowledged: all ten U-items, ruled 2026-08-03
+
+**We had not collected your answers.** GROUND-WP-0002 T05 confirmed all
+ten U-items on 2026-08-03. Two days later, clay-borg's own survey still
+reported *"0 of 10 ruled"*, and the register built this session initially
+recorded them as unanswered.
+
+**Every one was confirmed as the default we already simulate**, so no
+kernel behaviour changes. What we owe is bookkeeping: the scenarios still
+carry `provisional: true` for choices you have settled, and until those
+flags are lifted our tooling will keep reporting the items as open.
+Tracked on our side; nothing needed from you.
+
+Same for the five provisional scenarios confirmed in GROUND-WP-0002 T03.
+
+## 3. Our debt, listed so you can see it
+
+`make design`, 2026-08-05:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| findings | 12 (+2 notes) |
+| with a resolving reproduction | 3/12 |
+| open, lacking a reproduction | 9 — U1, U3–U10 |
+| reproductions green while open | 0 |
+
+**Only U2 names its U-item in a scenario.** Five provisional scenarios
+exist and four probably encode U-item defaults, but the mapping is not
+written down, so it is not checkable. That is clay-borg's to fix.
+
+## 4. Two open items that are not findings yet
+
+Both are **notes** under our new rule — real, but without an artifact, so
+they may not be raised as findings until one exists.
+
+- **GR-A13 "wasted SOLVE"** on an already-claimed Problem: a scenario had
+  to pick a default and did. No artifact isolates the degenerate line.
+- **GR-E03 / GR-E04 never played to the end.** Your GROUND-WP-0003 is the
+  playtest that would close this. When it runs, **the recording is the
+  artifact** — clay-borg's `cb-play --record` writes a finished game as a
+  replayable scenario, so a playtest produces the reproduction for
+  anything found on the way, at the cost of one flag.
+
+## 5. What changed on our side, if you care about the mechanism
+
+A finding is now inadmissible unless its reproduction **exists**, **has
+the shape you ruled** (GROUND-WP-0004 T02 — a row-level deal table, never
+a sum), **and can fail**. The third clause is new and is why §1 above is a
+retraction: GR-E01's reproduction went *green* when the edition landed and
+nothing treated a passing artifact as a signal, so a dead finding stayed
+queued for four days.
+
+Your half of that ruling — that rulings depending on arithmetic should
+cite the reproduction by id or path — is what makes this report checkable
+rather than assertive.