R-276: NOT TIRED is visible in play, and worth nothing where we measure it

Played four agents against one redcap. Two dodges in one round, both at 75 --
DEFENCE_STEP is -30, so the second would have been 45 and the roll of 70 would
have failed. The wiring fires.

Measured with and without, 2000 x 3 seeds: the power costs the party 6.1 points
against a lone redcap and 0.1 against three of them. It is a rule about being
outnumbered -- a lone defender spends four defences a round, a pack spends one
each -- which is why check-lethality moved only 0.7% to 0.9%. The baseline fights
redcaps in a pack, the configuration where the power is worth nothing, so that
figure is the floor rather than the effect.

Not presented as evidence: at seed 3 the party wins with the power on and is wiped
with it off, which is stream divergence rather than direction.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/REVIEW_LOG.md

@@ -6306,3 +6306,43 @@ other on identical facts, and only noticed because the measurement was absurd.
 
 **Two baselines re-recorded** — lethality and focus — and the bestiary regenerated from
 them. Seventeen guards became eighteen alongside the scenario session's handouts check.
+
+## R-276 — NOT TIRED is visible in play, and worth nothing where we measure it
+
+Played four agents against one redcap to watch R-275's wiring fire. Seed 3, round 1, the
+same round:
+
+```
+  Kate → Redcap A: 9 SUCCESS — dodged (72 vs 75)
+  Neil → Redcap A: 33 SUCCESS — dodged (70 vs 75)
+```
+
+**Both dodges at 75.** `DEFENCE_STEP` is -30, so the second one would have been at 45 and
+Neil's 70 would have failed. The rule its own entry has always printed is now in the fight.
+
+**What it is worth, and where.** Measured with the power and with it stripped, 2000 fights
+x 3 seeds:
+
+| | the power costs the party |
+|---|---|
+| one redcap, four agents focusing | **6.1 points** (6.0, 6.3, 6.0) |
+| one redcap, four agents at random | **6.1 points** |
+| three redcaps, four agents | **0.1 points** |
+
+**NOT TIRED is a rule about being outnumbered.** A lone redcap is attacked four times a
+round and spends four defences, so exemption from the stacking penalty is most of its
+survival. Three redcaps against four agents are attacked roughly once each, never spend a
+second defence, and the power is worth a tenth of a point.
+
+**Which is why check-lethality barely moved.** Its redcap figure went 0.7% to 0.9% wiped,
+and I reported that in R-275 as "small, because these fights rarely spend a second
+defence". That was the right explanation and I under-read it: the lethality baseline fights
+redcaps in a pack, and **the pack is precisely the configuration in which this power is
+worth nothing**. The guard suite is not wrong, it is measuring the case where the rule does
+the least, so the number it reports is the floor rather than the effect.
+
+**One thing I nearly presented as evidence and did not.** At seed 3 the party wins with the
+power on and is wiped with it off — the opposite of the power's direction. That is not a
+finding, it is two diverging streams: change one roll and every subsequent fight is a
+different fight. A single seed shows what happened, never what a rule is worth, which this
+log has now learned twice in one day and would have learned a third time here.