tegwick
982c004daf
GROUND-WP-0002 T03 voided gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p as a stand-in artifact, on the basis that Problems.csv makes 12 points available. The 12 is wrong and clay-borg supplied it: twelve points exist in the FILE, but GR-S01 deals 2/3/4 of the five Problems, so 4/6/9 are ever in play. clay-borg asserted the 12 in its CB-WP-0021 declaration and corrected itself one commit later, by which time the ruling had been made. The gap survives the authoritative dataset and is now confirmed at the table: the maintainer could not win any 3-player game on 2026-08-03. Three independent forms of evidence -- play, the engine's own constants, and both datasets agreeing -- plus a named reproduction. T06 has been removed from GROUND-WP-0002, which is finished; a new task does not belong in a closed workplan and the hub correctly refused to register it there. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.5 KiB
| id | type | title | domain | repo | status | owner | topic_slug | created | updated | origin | origin_ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GROUND-WP-0004 | workplan | Reopen GR-E01: the void ruling rests on a premise clay-borg has corrected | consumer | ground-game | ready | bernd | whynot | 2026-08-03 | 2026-08-03 | correction | GROUND-WP-0002 |
The GR-E01 ruling was made on a false premise, and clay-borg supplied it
GROUND-WP-0002 T03 ruled gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p:
Void / overturn as a rules gap — stand-in artifact. With authoritative
Problems.csv(12 pts available) the printed thresholds (2p→5, 3–4p→7, 5–6p→9) stand.
The 12 is wrong, and clay-borg is where it came from. Twelve points exist in the file; GR-S01 deals 2 / 3 / 4 of the five Problems, so the points ever in play are 4 / 6 / 9. clay-borg asserted the 12 in its CB-WP-0021 declaration, corrected itself one commit later after actually running the arithmetic, and by then the ruling had been made.
The gap is not a stand-in artifact. It survives the authoritative dataset, and it has now been confirmed at the table.
The evidence, in three independent forms
1. Play. The maintainer played several 3-player games on 2026-08-03 and could not win any of them.
2. The engine's own constants.
| seats | dealt (GR-S01) | max achievable | GR-E01 threshold | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 3 | 5 | unreachable |
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | unreachable |
| 4 | 3 | 6 | 7 | unreachable |
| 5 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
| 6 | 4 | 10 | 9 | reachable |
Claim every Problem in play, concede nothing, play perfectly — at 2, 3 and 4 seats the group still loses. In SHARED GROUND, where the group total is the outcome, those games cannot be won.
3. Both datasets agree. The stand-in gives 3 / 6 / 10; Problems.csv
gives 4 / 6 / 9. Both fall short of 5 / 7 / 9. No edition data
reconciles them, which is the part the void ruling turned on.
Reproduction: gd0001_group_success_is_unreachable_below_five_seats
in clay-borg —
cargo test -p games-ground --all-features gd0001 -- --nocapture. It
reads problem_priorities and threshold out of the engine, so it cannot
drift from the rules it tests.
Task: rule again, on the corrected numbers
id: GROUND-WP-0004-T01
status: todo
priority: high
Two numbers disagree and only one can be right:
- GR-S01's deal — 2 / 3 / 4 of five Problems. Should more be in play at low seat counts?
- GR-E01's thresholds — 5 / 7 / 9. Were they set for a deal larger than GR-S01 makes?
A third possibility to rule out explicitly, because nothing currently does: the thresholds may be intended to be unreachable at low seat counts, with SHARED GROUND being a 5–6 player mode. If that is the design, say so — the engine will otherwise keep offering a game that cannot be won, and a player will keep concluding they played badly.
gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p stays as a failing-in-fact record until
this is answered. It is not retired on the previous ruling.
Task: how a clay-borg premise reached a ruling unchecked
id: GROUND-WP-0004-T02
status: todo
priority: medium
Worth one paragraph, not a project: the ruling was sound reasoning on a supplied number, and the number was wrong. The engine now attaches a runnable reproduction to findings of this kind (clay-borg CB-WP-0022), so a future ruling can be checked against an artifact rather than a sentence.
State whether that is sufficient from this side, or whether rulings should cite the reproduction they relied on.