WORK-RECORDS.md

@@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
 | workplan | GROUND-WP-0002 | finished | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0002-rulings-clay-borg-is-blocked-on.md |
 | workplan | GROUND-WP-0003 | ready | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-playtest-semi-and-coalitions.md |
 | workplan | GROUND-WP-0004 | finished | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0004-the-threshold-ruling-rests-on-a-bad-premise.md |
-| workplan | GROUND-WP-0005-REPORT-260805 | informational | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0005-clay-borg-difficulty-260805.md |
 | workplan | GROUND-WP-0005 | active | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0005-difficulty-tiers-and-pressure-dial.md |
 | task | GROUND-WP-0001-T01 | done | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |
 | task | GROUND-WP-0001-T02 | done | — | workplans/GROUND-WP-0001-statehub-bootstrap.md |

workplans/GROUND-WP-0003-clay-borg-attack-and-modes-260807.md

@@ -1,109 +0,0 @@
----
-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.

workplans/GROUND-WP-0005-clay-borg-difficulty-260805.md

@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ owner: bernd
 topic_slug: whynot
 created: "2026-08-05"
 extends: GROUND-WP-0005
-state_hub_workstream_id: "61cabf31-88a8-4ca6-9383-55b8fccddecf"
 ---
 
 # clay-borg difficulty report — 2026-08-05