An audit, not a session. Five versions of fixes went in today, all by one
author, and the last three passes each found a defect introduced by the fix
for the previous one. Every fix from passes 4-8 re-checked against the
document: did it land, is it still true, did it break a neighbour.
1. "THE OFFER nearly quadruples the unsettled rate" is false as a statement
about play. It compares 14.5% against 3.8%, and the 3.8% is the same
counterfactual v0.19.1 removed from the table one commit ago: Ashcroft at
his full 85 is never a target, because if he refuses the countdown reaches
for Okonkwo. The real comparison is 14.5% against 11.3% at six players and
10.0% in the cut — a factor of 1.29, not 3.9. Printed in two places, both
of which v0.19.1 walked past while correcting the identical error beside
them. The trade the document describes is real and the taken rate really
does move 40.7% -> 48.7%; only the size of that one consequence is wrong.
2. All 27 fixes from passes 4-8 are present, which is not the reassurance it
sounds like. Nothing has gone missing; three of the four defects the last
three passes found were created or preserved BY a fix, and a presence
check cannot see any of them. What would have caught finding 1 is the
thing check-cited does for figures backed by an artifact — and the 3.8% is
enumerated from the rule, so nothing holds it. Every uncited number in the
document is a number nothing is holding.
3. The understudy carries a dagger (1d4+2) and has no knife skill, so it
swings at the 1% floor and the harness correctly picks its punch — every
EXPOSURE figure is right. But EXPOSURE's load-bearing first lesson says
flatly "it is a 1d3 punch", and a GM who reads the sheet sees a knife and
one combat skill. Measured both ways: arming the knife at brawl 60 moves
0.55 hurt to 0.73 and 0.00 deaths to 0.01, still 0.0% wiped, still two
rounds. The thesis survives; it is a documentation gap and is reported at
that size. content.mjs restored byte-identical after the test.
Confirmation session, seed 2260: step 5 landed on "they hold" — the branch
v0.19 wrote one commit ago — in the very next session, and by the route that
makes the case for it, both sides succeeding with the tie going to the person
being acted upon. Ashcroft refused a fourth time (63%, a 16% run) and the
swap failed a fourth time (roughly a coin flip, so 1 in 16); both recorded so
neither is read as a pattern.
Four fixes listed, unapplied. npm run check: 19 guards pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
