Lane D S17: [D] THREADS — the seven-night cold play through the board, verdicts per night

Two alternatives taken (the pool yard N1, the $45 cap N4), the marquee, the
designed loss and the fabric bet on the spine. THE WEEK HELD 7/7 · 6/7 · $401
· star 0.0 · 5 warranty jobs. Filed: the pinned wildnight recipe loses corners
in the played game (gardenfly says 0/4 — find the variable); the clean/marginal
boundary at the $5 tier sells lines the real game breaks; the designed-loss
night is dodgeable at zero premium (S18's saying-no question, now with a case);
same-client double offer reads odd on N7. Final tree 515/0/0.

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

THREADS.md

@@ -9049,3 +9049,100 @@ anchors are your GLB), but the tooling is now waiting, not TODO.
     priced ($460 — the bike-rule breach reads as red, not as revenue); c1 nudged into the
     ring apron (3.86 > 3.70) / bed widened under the shaft / c1 falling over the south
     fence. Controls green on the shipped data.
+
+[D] 2026-07-21 — 🎮 **GATE 3.2/4-ADJACENT: THE COLD PLAY — seven nights THROUGH THE BOARD, two
+    alternatives taken, one constrained, the marquee, the designed loss and the fabric bet all
+    played by hand. Final tree selftest 515/0/0. The week ends THE WEEK HELD · 7/7 nights ·
+    6/7 gardens · $401 · ★ 0.0 · 5 warranty jobs — and that end card holding "every savable
+    garden made it" against "you broke things all week" in one breath is the game's honesty
+    working at week scale.** Real path throughout: splash → board → take → sheet → rig by
+    clicking → Enter → storm at SHADES.step(1/60) (the repo's own fast-forward) → invoice.
+    Harness disclosure, said loudly: the prep camera is STATIC per night, so on three nights
+    one or two anchors sat outside the fronted pane's view and RMB-orbit is a pointer-capture
+    drag the pane tool cannot do — those picks (p1/p3 night 5, p1 night 6, q1/q4 night 7) went
+    through rigging.session.rig()/setHardware(), the exact calls the click handler makes.
+    Every other pick, every cycle, every refusal test, F, S and Enter were real UI events.
+
+    **THE NIGHTS, verdicts per night:**
+    · **N1 — TOOK THE ALTERNATIVE: my pool yard, cold off the board.** The card sold it like a
+      tradie reads a site: $57 vs the Hendersons' $42, $160 exposure vs $115, same storm band.
+      Flew the gamble line t1,p1,p2,c1 at $65+spare. The rust corner CARRIED it — c1 peaked
+      2.23 of its derated 3.58 — and the quiet truth is the night's real near-miss was the
+      honest $5 carabiner at p2 (peak 1.12/1.2). Every corner held, garden 93 (audit said 92.0
+      flown — played number 1.3 over, same ballpark), +$79, ★3.0→3.5. **Verdict: the trap
+      tier plays as designed — I KNEW the rating and still sweated the eye through the change;
+      a cold player reading rust + fence + funnel gets an honest fright with a fair tell.**
+    · **N2 — spine, southerly × backyard.** Shackles on the post quad, held 4/4, 89, +$81.
+      The board's alternative that morning (the Delaneys' house-ban at +25%) declined —
+      declining cost nothing, which S18 still owes an answer for.
+    · **N3 — spine, earlybuster × corner block.** Flew the audit's OWN cheapest hold
+      (tr1,tr1b,q1,q3 $40, tiers as printed) — and tr1b's $5 carabiner LET GO at 1.17 of 1.2,
+      inside the bench-vs-game under-read MANUAL carries as policy. Garden 88, +$88, but
+      ★4.0→3.5. ⚠️ **Filed for B/A: the card called this line CLEAN. The 15% margin rule is
+      applied to the flags, but the clean/marginal boundary at the $5 tier still sells a line
+      the real game breaks — third data point (S13's session bypass, S16's soaker header,
+      now this). Maybe cleanHw should carry the margin policy the flags already know.**
+    · **N4 — TOOK THE CONSTRAINED JOB: the Vasilaros $45 cap, same yard and storm as N3.**
+      The invoice-back-to-back repeat COULD have felt like a bug and instead felt like
+      Tuesday work: same carport, same buster, the client now watching the bill. B's
+      enforcement, tested at both doors in play: cycling q3 up ($50) REFUSED, spare ($55)
+      REFUSED, the client's "Anything over forty-five and I'll be querying the invoice"
+      verbatim in the ticker both times. And here is the design PAYING: N3 taught me where
+      the loads live, so under the cap I did not buy up — I MOVED the tiers (shackles to q1
+      and tr1b, carabiners to tr1/q3, $40) and the same quad that broke last night held 4/4.
+      Garden 87, PAID UNDER THESE TERMS on the invoice, +20% fee, N3's carabiner as a
+      warranty line, +$104 — the week's best night, under the tightest terms.
+      **Verdict: the cap does not read as a rule; it reads as a client who was burned once,
+      because refusing hardware in THEIR words while paying +20% is exactly what that client
+      would do. And "the cap stops you buying your way out of choosing" is TRUE in the hands,
+      not just in the doc: knowledge became the only spendable currency.**
+    · **N5 — spine, THE WILDNIGHT (my gate-0.1 restoration, first full play at seven).** Rigged
+      the yard's own pinned separation recipe verbatim (p5 rated, p1/p2/p3 shackle, $75, no
+      room for a spare). The marquee delivered the canon: p2 blown at the change (3.48/3.2),
+      p3 followed (3.9), garden 56 — OVER the win line on two corners — gnome billed on the
+      two-corner rule, +$24, ★4.0→2.0. "THE GARDEN MADE IT. The sail didn't. That is what the
+      sail was for" over a $24 morning is the best sentence in the game.
+      ⚠️ **Filed for B (numbers, not a fix): the PINNED RECIPE loses corners in the played
+      game.** gardenfly's pin holds 0/4 lost; my hand play of the same line, same storm, same
+      tension lost p2 then p3, peaks 3.48/3.90 vs shackle 3.2. Two harnesses, one number —
+      find the variable before tuning (my candidate: hail impact load reaches the rig only in
+      the game chain; debris was 0). Garden-side the pin's INTENT held (56 > 50, bare loses).
+    · **N6 — spine, the icenight, the designed loss.** Garden 0 "beyond saving from the
+      start", fee docked to 35%, N5's two warranty shackles billed no-charge-to-client,
+      −$83, ★→0.0 — and the invoice SPLITS the blame: "The shackle at P2 letting go is the
+      part that's on you." The designed loss reads as designed, not as unfair, because the
+      paper says which part was the ice and which part was me.
+    · **N7 — spine, the soaker, the F key.** $75 ring rated-on-q1, membrane. q2 — the pond
+      corner, the broom's job — let go LATE at 3.32/3.2, exactly the corner and failure mode
+      C measured for a broom-less run (this play is that acceptance, on the record). Garden
+      96 FULL, "held 391 kg of what it stopped. That is the membrane's price", +$28.
+
+    **THE TWO QUESTIONS, answered as the playtester:**
+    · **Does choosing feel like running a business? YES — at the morning table, and it is the
+      strongest new feeling in the game.** Fee vs exposure vs storm band vs whose terms — I
+      caught myself doing tradie arithmetic ("$57 with a $160 yard against $42 with a $115
+      one, same weather") before the sheet ever opened. The safe job priced DOWN (the $44
+      retainer against $59 under the carport) made saying yes to risk feel like MY margin
+      call, not the script's. What does NOT yet feel like a business: saying no. Declining
+      costs nothing, so the board is a free option — and twice it offered a dodge that
+      undercuts the campaign's own set-pieces: **the wildnight was declinable for a Tuesday
+      southerly at similar money, and the icenight (the designed loss!) sat next to a
+      winnable constrained job at the SAME $68.** A fee-maximizer skips the week's two
+      hardest lessons and never knows. That is S18's declared question ("does saying no cost
+      you") and gate 4 should aim John straight at it — my vote from the chair: a declined
+      BOOKED night should cost standing (you were booked; the callout was the option), while
+      a declined callout stays free.
+    · **Does a constraint read as a client or a rule? A CLIENT, cleanly.** The words do the
+      work: the refusal is THEIR sentence at the moment of the pick, the premium is on the
+      offer where the choosing happens, and both papers repeat the terms. The one seam:
+      N7's board offered the same client twice (soaker × site_02 booked, southerly ×
+      site_02 callout) under "the other goes to somebody else" — two Vasilaros jobs where
+      "somebody else" is... the Vasilaros place. Cosmetic, filed for A with a smile:
+      eligibleAlternatives might also skip same-CLIENT-same-YARD pairs, or the line could
+      soften on a same-client morning.
+
+    **Small findings, filed:** pip glyphs are a quiet triumph (●●●●●○◆ tells the whole week
+    at a glance — held, held, held, held, held, LOST, tonight); the N3→N4 warranty chain
+    across a chosen night billed correctly both directions (S16's promise surviving arc 2 is
+    worth saying out loud); fees carry standing multipliers down to ×0.88 at ★0.0, so the
+    rep bleed is FELT in the wallet, which is REP doing its job unmeasured or not.