diff --git a/workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-clay-borg-attack-and-modes-260807.md b/workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-clay-borg-attack-and-modes-260807.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9b19b4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-clay-borg-attack-and-modes-260807.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+---
+id: GROUND-WP-0003-REPORT-260807
+type: report
+title: "clay-borg: GR-E03 and GR-E04 played to the end, and what ATTACK is worth in each"
+domain: consumer
+repo: ground-game
+status: informational
+owner: bernd
+topic_slug: whynot
+created: "2026-08-07"
+extends: GROUND-WP-0003
+---
+
+# GR-E03 and GR-E04 have been played to the end
+
+GROUND-WP-0002 T04 recorded that both scoring modes were implemented and
+neither had ever been played through. That is now done, and it produced an
+answer to a second question we raised on 2026-08-06.
+
+Reproduction: `clay-borg$ cargo run --release -p games-ground --example attack-value`
+(800 games per mode). Under
+[CB-WP-0029](../../clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md).
+
+---
+
+## 0. Why they were unplayed, which was our fault
+
+`cb-play` built **every** game as SHARED GROUND and passed an empty setup
+patch. The mode was settable in scenario files and **not from the driver**,
+so two of your three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
+anyone actually plays. Nothing about the modes was wrong; we simply had no
+way to select them.
+
+Fixed. Reporting it because *"we never played them"* and *"we could not
+play them"* are different statements, and the second is the true one.
+
+## 1. All three modes work, and they disagree
+
+Same game, same 37 commands, seed 1, four players:
+
+| mode | winners |
+|---|---|
+| SHARED GROUND (GR-E02) | P1, P2, P3, P4 — mastery 4 |
+| COMMON PROBLEM (GR-E03) | **P3** — the top personal scorer |
+| BONDED COALITIONS (GR-E04) | **P1, P2** — the best Bond network, 4 > 3 > 2 |
+
+The modes produce three different answers from identical play, which is
+what they should do.
+
+## 2. What ATTACK is worth — asked in all three
+
+On 2026-08-06 we raised, from play, *"there is no incentive to play
+attacks as long as I have positive cards."* We could not send it then: it
+had no artifact, and our own bot ranks ATTACK below everything, so its
+zero attacks measured **our heuristic**, not your game.
+
+The artifact varies **exactly one number** — ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
+identical policy — and asks in every mode. 200 games per cell.
+*"Won"* is group success in co-op, and *"is seat 0 among the winners"* in
+the other two, since ATTACK is an individual's choice.
+
+| mode | never attack | attack when convenient | attack always |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| SHARED GROUND | 132 / 165 / 190 / 200 | **identical** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |
+| COMMON PROBLEM | 59 / 52 / 48 / 44 | 59 / 52 / 48 / **34** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |
+| BONDED COALITIONS | 131 / 134 / 132 / 116 | **59 / 52 / 48 / 34** | 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 |
+
+*(2, 3, 4 and 6 seats)*
+
+**ATTACK earns its place in none of them.**
+
+- **Co-op:** attacking is *free* — identical win counts — and also
+  pointless. Group success depends on SOLVE alone; ATTACK's effects
+  (Stress, Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides it.
+- **Semi-co-op:** a modest cost at six seats.
+- **Coalitions:** roughly **halves** your chance of being among the
+  winners.
+
+## 3. The coalitions result has a mechanism, and the data confirms it
+
+GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack. GR-E04 scores Bond
+**networks**. So attacking destroys the thing that scores.
+
+The confirmation was not designed and fell out: **the attacking numbers in
+GR-E04 are identical to GR-E03's** — 59 / 52 / 48 / 34 in both. That is
+exactly what the mechanism predicts. Break every Bond and each seat
+becomes a coalition of one, so **GR-E04 degenerates into GR-E03.**
+
+## 4. The consequence we think is worth your attention
+
+Because nobody who plays well attacks, **Stress never rises, and DARVO
+never arms.** In 500 competent games it fired zero times. The full
+sequence — DENY, ATTACK, REVERSE, the Focus/Blame flip, the Protection
+interaction — is reachable only by playing badly.
+
+**We are not saying this is a defect.** DARVO is the pattern the game is
+*about* not falling into, and a self-destructive ATTACK may be exactly the
+design — the mechanic as a cautionary structure rather than a strategy.
+
+**The question is narrower than that, and it is yours:** is it intended
+that the namesake mechanic is unreachable in competent play, in **all
+three** modes? If yes, nothing here needs changing and we will record it.
+If no, the lever is that ATTACK has no path to any scoring outcome.
+
+## 5. Standing offer
+
+We can now run any mode at any seat count over any seed range, and vary a
+single policy parameter to isolate a mechanic's value. If there is a
+question of the form *"does X ever pay?"*, it is cheap for us to answer.