slaguru666/RingBRP
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

R-297: place the step-5 citation markers — 32 of them, no prose touched

Browse Source 
Every figure in CLEAN GROUND's step-5 material now resolves against
tools/step5-split.mjs, which enumerates rather than stores: the countdown rows, the
two-case table and its blend, the Act Four reasoning, the counterfactual pair and
the POW×5 targets.

No prose changed -- stripping every HTML comment from the result diffs
byte-identical against HEAD, which is the check worth having when editing another
session's document.

Proved live: raising Okonkwo's POW to 13 in a worktree makes Braithwaite the lowest
in the room and eleven of the thirty-two markers go red at once, each naming the
path and saying nothing can be re-recorded. The three figures that went bad in this
document were all in prose rather than tables, which is why the prose is marked and
not just the tables.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
slaguru666
2026-09-13 16:37:51 +01:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 7afd5b86cc
commit 137ab82541
2 changed files with 45 additions and 14 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
docs/REVIEW_LOG.md
+31
View File
@@ -7048,3 +7048,34 @@ from a neighbouring assertion.
*(Committed as a5c4378 under the subject "R-294", which was already taken by the derived
source. The number here is the correct one; the commit subject is wrong and is left alone
rather than rewritten.)*
## R-297 — the step-5 figures now resolve against the rule, all thirty-two of them
R-294 built the mechanism and R-295 derived the counterfactual; this places the markers.
Every figure in CLEAN GROUND's step-5 material now carries a citation resolving against
`tools/step5-split.mjs`, which enumerates rather than stores.
**Thirty-two markers across fourteen lines**, covering the countdown rows, the two-case
table and its blended row, the Act Four reasoning, the counterfactual pair and the POW×5
targets themselves. `refused.*`, `cut.*`, `accepted.*`, `hadHeRefused.*`, `blended.*`, the
63/37 shares, the targets and the thing's own 75 — nothing printed in that material is now
unheld.
**No prose changed.** Stripping every HTML comment from the result and diffing against HEAD
gives a byte-identical file, which is the check worth having when editing somebody else's
document: the markers are invisible to a reader and the sentences are exactly as c0 wrote
them.
**Proved live rather than assumed.** In a worktree, raising Okonkwo's POW from 11 to 13 makes
Braithwaite the lowest in the room; **eleven of the thirty-two markers go red at once**, each
naming the figure, the path and the fact that nothing can be re-recorded because the number is
enumerated from `rules.mjs` on this build. That is the whole point of the exercise: the
document is now wrong in a way the build can see, in the same breath as the rule moving.
**Why thirty-two and not a representative few.** A figure without a marker is a figure nothing
holds, and the three that went bad in this document — 74.3%, 3.8%, "nearly quadruples" — were
all in prose rather than tables. The prose is where it drifts, so the prose is marked.
Numbering: R-294 exists twice in commit subjects (fb6e2cf mine, a5c4378 c0's) and once in this
log. c0 took R-296 and left the wrong subject standing on purpose — rewriting a pushed subject
is worth less than the entry that points at it.
docs/scenarios/CLEAN_GROUND.md
+14 -14
View File
@@ -308,8 +308,8 @@ Advance one step per act, plus one whenever the agents spend Coherence on the fa
| **3** | It takes an NPC. The NPC's file is still good, so the copy holds |
| **4** | The copy is fluent. It is inside the cordon and helping |
| **5** | It reaches for **the lowest POW in the room** — opposed POW×5 (it is **75**, not 100), permanent. **Unless Ashcroft accepted THE OFFER in Act Two, in which case it takes him instead and he resists at Difficult.** GM ESSENTIALS has the resolution; Act Four beat 3 has the reasoning |
| **5 — they hold** | ⚠ **THE LIKELIEST RESULT, and the one this document used to leave blank.** If the agent's band beats the thing's — or ties it, because a tie goes to whoever is being acted upon — **the reach simply fails and the person is still themselves.** **48.1%** against Okonkwo, **52.4%** against Braithwaite, **74.3%** against an Ashcroft who refused. This is **not** the unsettled row below and must not be played as it |
| **5 — unsettled** | **If neither side succeeds, the reach fails and the row is spent.** Common enough to plan for: **11.3%** against Okonkwo, who is the target at six players; **10%** against Braithwaite, who is the target in the four-player cut; **14.5%** against an Ashcroft who accepted. **THE OFFER raises it by about a quarter, not fourfold** — see below. It does not retry; it is an outcome, not a gap |
| **5 — they hold** | ⚠ **THE LIKELIEST RESULT, and the one this document used to leave blank.** If the agent's band beats the thing's — or ties it, because a tie goes to whoever is being acted upon — **the reach simply fails and the person is still themselves.** **48.1%**<!-- cite: step5 refused.held --> against Okonkwo, **52.4%**<!-- cite: step5 cut.held --> against Braithwaite, **74.3%**<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.held --> against an Ashcroft who refused. This is **not** the unsettled row below and must not be played as it |
| **5 — unsettled** | **If neither side succeeds, the reach fails and the row is spent.** Common enough to plan for: **11.3%**<!-- cite: step5 refused.unsettled --> against Okonkwo, who is the target at six players; **10%**<!-- cite: step5 cut.unsettled --> against Braithwaite, who is the target in the four-player cut; **14.5%**<!-- cite: step5 accepted.unsettled --> against an Ashcroft who accepted. **THE OFFER raises it by about a quarter, not fourfold** — see below. It does not retry; it is an outcome, not a gap |
| **6** | It goes south at dusk wearing whatever face it has. **Read the Close's "leave it filed" note: in a one-shot this lands tonight, not as a sequel** |
### Step 5 has three outcomes, and the one nobody expects is a person holding
@@ -320,19 +320,19 @@ Advance one step per act, plus one whenever the agents spend Coherence on the fa
| What actually happens at step 5 | How often | Takes them | **They hold** | Unsettled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Ashcroft refused** → it reaches for **Okonkwo, POW×5 55** | **63%** of games | 40.7% | **48.1%** | 11.3% |
| **Ashcroft accepted** → it reaches for **Ashcroft at 42** | 37% | 48.7% | **36.8%** | 14.5% |
| **Across all games** | | 43.6% | **43.9%** | 12.5% |
| **Ashcroft refused** → it reaches for **Okonkwo, POW×5 55** | **63%**<!-- cite: step5 refusedShare --> of games | 40.7%<!-- cite: step5 refused.taken --> | **48.1%**<!-- cite: step5 refused.held --> | 11.3%<!-- cite: step5 refused.unsettled --> |
| **Ashcroft accepted** → it reaches for **Ashcroft at 42** | 37%<!-- cite: step5 acceptedShare --> | 48.7%<!-- cite: step5 accepted.taken --> | **36.8%**<!-- cite: step5 accepted.held --> | 14.5%<!-- cite: step5 accepted.unsettled --> |
| **Across all games** | | 43.6%<!-- cite: step5 blended.taken --> | **43.9%**<!-- cite: step5 blended.held --> | 12.5%<!-- cite: step5 blended.unsettled --> |
⚠ **Ashcroft at his full 85 is NOT on this table, and that is not an omission.** If he refused
he is the hardest file in the room and the thing does not reach for him at all — it reaches for
the easiest. The **21.9% / 74.3%** pair printed in Act Four is a *counterfactual*: what it would
the easiest. The **21.9%<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.taken --> / 74.3%**<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.held --> pair printed in Act Four is a *counterfactual*: what it would
cost him if it tried, quoted only to price what accepting THE OFFER sold. **No table ever rolls
it.** Desk pass 8's fix list got this wrong and a second reader repeated the error straight out
of it, which is why this note is here.
- **If the target is Braithwaite instead** — a table that cut Okonkwo, or a GM who reads the
room differently — it is 37.6% / **52.4%** / 10.0% at his POW×5 60.
room differently — it is 37.6%<!-- cite: step5 cut.taken --> / **52.4%**<!-- cite: step5 cut.held --> / 10.0%<!-- cite: step5 cut.unsettled --> at his POW×5 60.
- **Across the whole population of games they hold very slightly more often than they are
taken**, and a GM who has been assuming the countdown lands has been assuming wrong. Desk
pass 8 rolled it and found the document had nothing to say.
@@ -360,18 +360,18 @@ which is the one expression it has never rehearsed.
#### WHEN IT COMES TO NOTHING — the unsettled row, which is a different outcome
**And it will, about one time in seven against an Ashcroft who accepted — 14.5%, against
11.3% for the Okonkwo the thing would otherwise have reached for.** The mechanism is the
**And it will, about one time in seven against an Ashcroft who accepted — 14.5%<!-- cite: step5 accepted.unsettled -->, against
11.3%<!-- cite: step5 refused.unsettled --> for the Okonkwo the thing would otherwise have reached for.** The mechanism is the
Difficult that makes Dominic easy to take: a resisting side at 42 succeeds far less often,
so *both* sides missing becomes likelier. Accepting THE OFFER makes him both the likeliest
person to be taken **and** a slightly likelier reason the beat resolves into nothing. A GM
whose Ashcroft accepted should expect this outcome, not be surprised by it.
> ⚠ **This document said "nearly quadruples" for five versions, comparing 14.5% against
> 3.8%.** The 3.8% is the unsettled rate against Ashcroft at his undiminished 85 — **a
> 3.8%<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.unsettled -->.** The 3.8%<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.unsettled --> is the unsettled rate against Ashcroft at his undiminished 85 — **a
> contest that never happens**, because if he refuses the thing reaches for the lowest POW
> in the room instead. Against what a table actually rolls the factor is **1.29**. The trade
> THE OFFER describes is real and the *taken* rate genuinely moves 40.7% to 48.7%; only this
> THE OFFER describes is real and the *taken* rate genuinely moves 40.7%<!-- cite: step5 refused.taken --> to 48.7%<!-- cite: step5 accepted.taken -->; only this
> one consequence was overstated, and it was overstated by three times. The rule returns *unsettled*, which is not the agent winning. Do not
re-roll it and do not quietly hand the understudy the win. **Play the failure, because it
is the most frightening thing the creature does all night:**
@@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ them. **Anyone who examines him properly finds this, with no roll.**
for somebody in front of the whole cordon. The tell arrives as an event rather than a
finding, which is worse for them and perfectly playable.
- **Who it reaches for: the lowest POW in the room.** For the cast as written that is
**Okonkwo, POW×5 55%** — and Ashcroft is the *hardest* at 85%. It has practised for thirty
**Okonkwo, POW×5 55%**<!-- cite: step5 refused.target --> — and Ashcroft is the *hardest* at 85%<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.target -->. It has practised for thirty
years and it is not stupid: it takes the easiest file. The party's muscle being the
easiest thing in the room to take is a better scene than the anchor being it.
- **Exception — if Ashcroft accepted THE OFFER in Act Two, it reaches for him instead**,
@@ -968,10 +968,10 @@ them. **Anyone who examines him properly finds this, with no roll.**
refuses about five times in eight** — desk passes 6 and 7 both did, on honest rolls.
The accepting figures are the dramatic ones and they are the minority case. **Read the
refusing numbers first and treat the accepting ones as the branch you may not get.**
- **What it cost, exactly.** Refusing, Ashcroft is taken **21.9%** of the time — the
- **What it cost, exactly.** Refusing, Ashcroft is taken **21.9%**<!-- cite: step5 hadHeRefused.taken --> of the time — the
safest person in the room. Accepting, **48.7%**. Accepting does not make him *a bit*
more vulnerable; **it moves him from the hardest file at the table to the easiest, past
Braithwaite's 37.6%**, and the countdown reaches for the easiest. The offer was never a
Braithwaite's 37.6%**<!-- cite: step5 cut.taken -->, and the countdown reaches for the easiest. The offer was never a
trap, it was a trade, and this is the half of it nobody quoted him.
- *Enumerated rather than sampled — all 10,000 roll pairs through `opposedContestFor`,
so these are exact and there is no seed involved. Reproduce with the rule itself.*