ground-game/reports/260805-clay-borg-findings.md

id	type	title	domain	repo	status	owner	topic_slug	created	extends
GROUND-RPT-0001	report	clay-borg finding report, 2026-08-05 — one withdrawal, and ten rulings we had not collected	consumer	ground-game	informational	bernd	whynot	2026-08-05	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 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 Withdrawn: GR-E01 vs GR-S01 — "4/6/9 against 5/7/9"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.