The workplan list read as though GROUND-WP-0002, 0003 and 0005 each
existed twice. They did not: three inbound clay-borg finding reports were
filed in workplans/ borrowing the number of the workplan they bear on, and
each was registered in State Hub as a workplan.
A report is correspondence, not a unit of work. The three move to
reports/YYMMDD-<slug>.md with their own id space (GROUND-RPT-0001..0003),
keeping type: report, status: informational and the extends: link to the
workplan they relate to. Their state_hub_workstream_id bindings are
dropped and the hub registrations archived, so the hub's workplan list
matches the files.
Five workplans, one file per number.
AGENTS.md records the convention, since the reports arrive regularly and
nothing in the repo said where they go.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
GROUND-WP-0005 has both tasks blocked on a measured difficulty baseline.
This is that baseline, with its confound stated rather than hidden.
It opens with a retraction. Earlier today clay-borg was going to report
that a greedy bot wins 200 of 200 games at five and six seats and the game
is too easy there -- which would have invited threshold changes. A
FirstLegal policy scores 0% on the identical deals where greedy scores
100%, and at two seats it beats greedy. Two unsophisticated agents span
the entire range, so a single policy's win rate is a statement about the
policy. clay-borg's adversarial review caught it before it left the repo.
Fifth wrong premise avoided, second stopped before sending.
What is reported instead is the WINNABLE FRACTION -- the proportion of
deals in which an exhaustive search finds a winning line in the final
round -- alongside a plural policy panel and the SPREAD between policies.
The spread is 71.7 to 100.0 percentage points, which is the direct
evidence for why the single-policy figure was meaningless.
Stated limits: the winnable figure is conditioned on greedy's play up to
the final round (searching from round 1 exceeded 2x10^6 nodes at two
seats), it is a lower bound, and budget-cut deals are excluded rather than
counted as losses.
No threshold changes are proposed. The confound is large enough that
clay-borg would rather this repo saw it than acted on it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
