--- id: GROUND-RPT-0001 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 Withdrawn: GR-E01 vs GR-S01 — *"4/6/9 against 5/7/9"* **clay-borg retracts this finding.** It was raised as: *the deal count puts 4/6/9 points in play against thresholds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.