ground-game/workplans/GROUND-WP-0002-rulings-clay-borg-is-blocked-on.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	updated	state_hub_workstream_id
GROUND-WP-0002	workplan	Rulings the engine is blocked on, and the dataset it never loaded	consumer	ground-game	ready	bernd	whynot	2026-08-03	2026-08-03	d8fc3a69-a5ae-4f6e-b4fc-b07d1ff9c783

Rulings the engine is blocked on

clay-borg implements the engine that simulates GROUND. Its INTENT says game-semantics questions defer to this repo. Nine such questions have accumulated there and none has been answered, because none had a home. This is their home.

Nothing here is a clay-borg change. Every item is a ruling only the game's owner can make; the engine already carries a provisional default for each and will flip it when the ruling lands.

The finding that reframes most of this

The engine has never loaded this repository's edition data.

games/ground/src/lib.rs:1839 builds Problems with value: priority and suits cycled by index — a stand-in it has always labelled as such. Mean- while editions/ground-darvo-r0/Problems.csv has carried the real thing since 2026-07-31:

	problems per scenario	values	total available
Problems.csv (real)	5	2, 2, 2, 3, 3	12
the engine's stand-in	3	1, 2, 3	6

The dataset also defines required_solution (Repair / Clarify / Boundary), visibility (Surface / Hidden) and hidden_priority (0–4) — all of which the engine currently invents.

GR-E01's thresholds are 2p → 5, 3–4p → 7, 5–6p → 9. Against 12 available points those are ordinary targets. Against a stand-in worth 6 they are unreachable, which is exactly what clay-borg reported as a rules gap needing a ruling here.

So the first question is not a rules question at all. It is whether this dataset is authoritative — and if it is, several of the items below dissolve without anyone changing a rule.

Task: declare the dataset authoritative, and say what the engine may rely on

id: GROUND-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "431cca12-e6d9-4eba-9360-f4f13ed263c1"

State whether editions/ground-darvo-r0/ is the authoritative source for Problem values, required solutions, visibility and priority — and what the engine may treat as stable.

SCOPE.md already promises "stable IDs suitable for layout templates, print merges, and later digital import." This task turns that into a contract clay-borg can build against:

• which columns are authoritative vs presentational;
• whether point_value and required_solution may change between r0 and a later revision without a version bump;
• what a version bump looks like, so the engine can pin one.

Until this is answered the engine cannot import the data, and every threshold question below stays unanswerable.

Task: rule on SOLVE's legality

id: GROUND-WP-0002-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "895573ac-d7b9-4160-a118-5bc8866c28c8"

Three related questions, all raised by play, all currently decided by the engine's default rather than by the rules.

(a) May SOLVE be selected against a face-down Problem? Measured in the browser on 2026-08-03: a player selected SOLVE on a face-down Problem in three consecutive rounds. Nothing happened, three times, because GR-A02's resolver skips a Problem that is not face up. The engine offered the move each time.

A face-down commit you cannot fulfil is a plausible bluff in a commit/reveal game with DARVO — which is why this is a ruling and not a bug. But if it is a bluff it should be intended; if it is not, the move should not be offered.

(b) May SOLVE be selected when the seat holds no Solution of the required suit? Same shape: currently offered, silently does nothing.

(c) GR-A13 — SOLVE against an already-claimed Problem. Long-standing in clay-borg's evidence as "wasted SOLVE". Intended cost of a bad read, or a gap?

For each: intended, or not offered. If intended, say what the player is meant to learn from the waste.

Task: confirm or overturn the six provisional defaults

id: GROUND-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "52cc157f-8fbd-469d-9da7-a96f1c60b654"

Six engine scenarios are tagged provisional: true with provisional_owner: ground-game. Each encodes a default the engine had to pick because the rules did not say. A ruling flips the scenario; it does not change the kernel.

scenario	the default currently in force
gr-a04-bond-support	a Support with no existing relation forms no Bond, because GR-L02 requires the target's consent
gr-d01-darvo-trigger	Stress clamps at 5 on every application (GR-F01 under the U2 default)
gr-d05-darvo-reverse	the REVERSE stage's default resolution
gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p	thresholds measured against the stand-in values — see the finding above
gr-e02-shared-ground	SHARED GROUND scoring default
gr-e04-coalitions	Bond networks score together; Rivalries do not connect; an unbonded player is a coalition of one

Confirm each or overturn it. gr-e01 should be taken last, because T01 may dissolve it.

Task: GR-E03 and GR-E04 have never been played to the end

id: GROUND-WP-0002-T04
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "6c55eb56-22dc-4ee2-ac1a-4ced0dedfab9"

Both scoring modes are implemented and neither has been played through a full game — by a person or by the engine. Whatever the rules say, nobody knows what these modes feel like at the table.

This is a playtest task, not an engine task, and it belongs here.