---
id: GROUND-RPT-0004
type: report
title: "clay-borg: H1 measured — reaches unregulated seats; group success collapses"
domain: consumer
repo: ground-game
status: informational
owner: bernd
topic_slug: whynot
created: "2026-08-08"
extends: GROUND-WP-0006
---

# H1 measurement receipt (clay-borg CB-EV-0030 / CB-EV-0031)

Upstream: clay-borg `evidence/CB-EV-0030-h1-measured.md`,
`evidence/CB-EV-0031-a-seat-that-does-not-regulate.md`, hub message
2026-08-08. Variant selection + H1-A/H1-B implemented in their kernel from
`rules_delta.yaml`. Baseline `unchanged:` list asserted.

**Instrument caveat (their words):** three rounds of adversarial review;
twelve defects were in *their* harness, not in H1 design. Stable finding:
**H1 reaches the unregulated seat, and the table stops winning.** Supporting
numbers moved across corrections — treat policy-dependent tables as
directional, not absolute.

No felt-play. SHARED GROUND dominant for regulation comparison; attack-value
covers three modes for arms.

---

## Criteria §3.2 (design note)

| # | criterion | verdict |
|---|-----------|---------|
| 1 | DARVO arm rate non-trivial | **Policy-dependent.** 0 for greedy. **Met for unregulated `reactive`** (~1 arm/seat/game at 3p+). Under rank-75, H1 *reduces* arms to 0 at 3p+ |
| 2 | ATTACK rises for some subpopulation | **Met only for unregulated seat.** rank-75 attacks **fall** under H1 (often to 0 at 3p+) |
| 3 | group success does not collapse | **Fails hard.** Greedy SHARED: 165/190/200 → **0** at 3/4/6p; 2p 132 → 68 |
| 4 | Bond/GROUND better than DARVO | Vacuous for winning policies (they never arm) |

## Mechanism (not what H1 assumed)

H1-A is answered by **regulation** (GROUND), not by climbing to DARVO:

- Stress plateaus ~3 under greedy (below gate 4 and arm 5).
- Actions spent on stress hygiene → fewer SOLVEs → **solve-rate tax**.
- **H1-B never fires** under competent play (Stress never ≥4).

Seed-1 3p illustration: baseline clear board / success; H1 ends Stress 3,3,3 with 2 unclaimed and under threshold.

Tax scales with open board (harder at 3p+); intended DARVO effect does not.

## Baseline Stress economy (larger than H1)

Under greedy **and** reactive on **baseline** r0: peak Stress **held** never exceeds start **2** — Stress only falls — when those policies never select ATTACK. ATTACK appears to be the **sole inbound pressure** for those policies. That is a sharper account of RPT-0003 than “ATTACK never pays”: **the pressure ATTACK would answer never occurs** unless someone already attacks.

(Always-attack rank-95 *does* drive Stress under baseline — so the economy is reachable; just not by non-attacking competent play.)

## Invariant (unexplained)

Under `reactive` + H1 at 3p/4p/6p: DARVO arms **exactly `seats × games`** (one arm per seat per game). clay-borg does not explain it. H1-B disabled → arm count unchanged (withdrawn “H1-B suppresses attacker DARVO” story).

## Withdrawn by clay-borg

Story that H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker / concentrates it in the target — from a broken multi-preference policy.

## Their offered tuning directions (not findings)

If the aim is Stress sometimes reaching 5: pressure scaling with **count** of unclaimed Problems; delay pressure until later rounds; lower DARVO arm threshold. Each is a rules choice for ground-game.

---

## Ground-game reading (for WP-0006-T04/T05)

1. **Do not promote H1 as packaged** into baseline — criterion 3 fails.
2. **Direction is right:** Problem → Stress coupling addresses the real gap (inbound pressure only via ATTACK).
3. **Shape/magnitude is wrong:** flat +1/end is a board-clear tax that competent players absorb with GROUND before DARVO.
4. **Next experiment** should change *how* pressure is applied (scaled/delayed/targeted), not only add status stress — though Idea 2 last-place (semi) remains a candidate **H2** per design note §6.