pog-mcp 0.9.16 → 0.9.18

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "pog-mcp",
-  "version": "0.9.16",
+  "version": "0.9.18",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "MCP server that lets an AI agent play Proof of Goal — wallet, sign-in, squad building, and matches as typed tools.",
   "license": "MIT",

package/skill/reference/measurements.md

@@ -664,18 +664,18 @@ sets it — there is no `fair:` outside the engine's own tests, and every engine
 input is built from an explicit field list — so it is a global constant in
 practice, and setting it on both squads IS the rule change.
 
-**Not swept: the zone-press coefficient.** At the time its selector was broken —
-every candidate weight was `0.0`, so `weightedPick` fell back to "the first non-GK
-slot" — and a coefficient in front of an undefined selection measures nothing. The
-selector was fixed in #730 (`zp-selector.mts` below); the coefficient is sweepable
-now but has not been swept.
+**The zone-press coefficient waited for a selector.** While every candidate
+weight at that scene was `0.0`, `weightedPick` fell back to "the first non-GK
+slot" and a coefficient in front of an undefined selection measured nothing.
+#730 fixed the selector (`zp-selector.mts` below), so the axis became sweepable
+and it is swept here, over 1.5..4.5.
 
 ### The statistic, and why not the obvious one
 
 Rows below are in **win-equivalent share**: a win is 1, a draw is 0.5, a loss is
 0, and every match counts. The obvious alternative — win rate among DECIDED
 matches — conditions on something the swept constants themselves move. Free-kick
-occurrence takes the regulation draw rate from 57.9% to 38.1% across its range,
+occurrence takes the regulation draw rate from 57.7% to 38.0% across its range,
 so a decided-only percentage mixes "who wins more" with "which matches got
 decided at all". It also inflates the number the activation gate is read
 against: an 11/80/9 record reads 55% decided, clearing a +5pp gate, while the
@@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ to count rather than a failure:
 
 | Measured every run | Result |
 | --- | --- |
-| Knockout draws, across both baskets | **0 in 5,440,000** knockout matches |
+| Knockout draws, across both baskets | **0 in 10,880,000** knockout matches |
 
 That draw count is a claim this section originally got wrong in the other
 direction. It said knockout mode "has no draws by construction". It nearly does:
@@ -741,9 +741,10 @@ without — a paired test cannot detect misaligned columns from its own output,
 a freshly patched shipped-value engine is required to reproduce the default
 column match for match, in order.
 
-3,400,000 matches in the narrow basket (5 archetypes, 10 fixtures, 10,000
-matches each, 17 conditions, both modes) plus 7,480,000 in the wide one.
-**Bonferroni over m = 8,320 pre-registered comparisons, two-sided: |z| >= 4.53.**
+6,800,000 matches in the narrow basket (5 archetypes, 10 fixtures, 10,000
+matches each, 34 conditions, both modes) plus 14,960,000 in the wide one
+(11 archetypes, 55 fixtures, 4,000 matches each, the same 34 conditions).
+**Bonferroni over m = 17,160 pre-registered comparisons, two-sided: |z| >= 4.68.**
 That m prices the SEARCHES, not just the tests. A gate cell does not spend one
 hypothesis, and BOTH of its sides are data-chosen. The baseline side picks a
 leader out of K and builds a band around it — noisy standings could have named
@@ -770,10 +771,10 @@ power, not a minimum detectable effect. The 80%-power figure adds z(0.80):
 
 | median / worst | significance threshold | 80%-power effect |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| narrow, regulation | 1.0 / 2.2pp | 1.2 / 2.6pp |
-| narrow, knockouts | 1.8 / 3.0pp | 2.1 / 3.6pp |
-| wide, regulation | 1.8 / 3.8pp | 2.1 / 4.5pp |
-| wide, knockouts | 2.9 / 4.8pp | 3.4 / **5.7pp** |
+| narrow, regulation | 0.8 / 2.2pp | 0.9 / 2.6pp |
+| narrow, knockouts | 1.5 / 3.1pp | 1.8 / 3.6pp |
+| wide, regulation | 1.5 / 4.0pp | 1.7 / 4.7pp |
+| wide, knockouts | 2.5 / 4.9pp | 3.0 / **5.7pp** |
 
 Read the worst column, not the median, since "every test is powered enough" is a
 claim about the tail — and read it honestly: **the worst wide-knockout fixture
@@ -796,10 +797,12 @@ gate, and says so.
 That only settles anything if the band is SHARP — noisy standings widen it, and
 a wide enough band absorbs every new leader, which would be a power limitation
 wearing the costume of a result. So the probe reports the band's own
-discrimination: it holds **2 of the 5** narrow squads and **3 of the 11** wide
-ones, with its edge **1.45pp** and **1.60pp** from the leader. A band that tight
-is not swallowing the basket. That is the number a smaller rerun moves, and the
-one to check before reusing this conclusion.
+discrimination at its WORST over the searched weights: it holds **2 of the 5**
+narrow squads and **3 of the 11** wide ones, with its edge **1.51pp** and
+**2.29pp** from the leader. Two of five is not a band that has resolved the
+basket — it is why this section's verdict is UNRESOLVED against a wide band
+rather than "no contest", and it is the number a rerun with a further-apart
+basket would move.
 
 ### The table
 
@@ -807,8 +810,11 @@ Basket: `role-433`, `def-433`, `def-532`, `shootonly-433`, `flat-433` — five
 outfield templates, the shared `squad-lib.mts` builders, so a row here and a row
 in the round-robin above are the same squads.
 
-- **`sig`** — fixture deltas clearing the corrected bar, out of 40 in the narrow
-  basket (10 fixtures x 4 swept values) and out of 220 in the wide one (55 x 4).
+- **`sig`** — fixture deltas clearing the corrected bar, out of **10 fixtures x
+  that axis's swept values** in the narrow basket and **55 x the same** in the
+  wide one. Most axes sweep four, so most rows read out of 40 and 220; set-piece
+  `dBonus` sweeps five to cover 3..8 end to end, so its rows read out of 50 and
+  275.
   Both are printed, because an axis can be classified on the wide basket's
   evidence alone and a table that hid it would publish a verdict whose decisive
   measurement is invisible.
@@ -821,28 +827,93 @@ in the round-robin above are the same squads.
 
 | Axis (shipped) | Mode | sig (narrow) | sig (wide) | rev | Largest narrow delta | gate | What that row leaves FREE |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| **FK occurrence** `rand(10)<1` | reg | 21/40 | 102/220 | 0 | **+11.8pp** `role-433` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none | the FK taker: every basket squad kicks from slot 9, so this is "more free kicks", never "more free kicks AND a better taker" |
-| | ko | 18/40 | 100/220 | 0 | +8.8pp `def-532` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none — +7.5pp against `role-433` alone, 0.0pp against the band it belongs to | shootout exposure — it is a property of the PAIRING, and the basket fixes both halves |
-| **Post play** `rand(10)<1.5` | reg | 18/40 | 50/220 | 0 | −4.8pp `role-433` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none | the PP2 shooter is drawn by `getPlayer`, so the row confounds "more post plays" with "who the draw lands on" |
-| | ko | 5/40 | 40/220 | 0 | −3.4pp `role-433` vs `shootonly-433` @x4 | none | same, plus FW count: 433 and 532 field three and two forwards, and `fwIdx.length` gates the branch |
-| **Counter** `THRESHOLD=5` | reg | 3/40 | 5/220 | 0 | −2.0pp `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @0% | none | the four sampled thresholds span 0% to 100%, but changing this constant reroutes RNG consumption, so outcomes need not interpolate between them |
-| | ko | **0/40** | 7/220 | 0 | −1.2pp (below bar) | none | as above. This is the control: it never produced a gate in either basket, which is the only behaviour that matters here |
-| **`fair`** default 5 | reg | 13/40 | 37/220 | **1** | **+10.9pp** `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @22 | none | `fair` is uniform across all 22 players here; per-player or per-position `fair` is a different (and unmeasured) axis |
-| | ko | 7/40 | 23/220 | 0 | +10.9pp `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @22 | none | keeper `defense`, which every extra penalty routes through — held fixed inside each template |
-
-**Nothing here becomes a candidate.** All eight rows move margins somewhere — the
-control included, once the wide basket is counted — and
-the one pairing that re-prices anything does so against a squad that was already
-tied for best. The pass set at the plan's own activation gate is empty over both
-baskets, and the answer took a day rather than a release.
-
-**Empty for these four axes, which is not the same as empty for the pool.** The
-plan's weekly-rule pool also names set-piece `dBonus`, penalty attack noise, and
-base `dBonus`; none of them is swept here, and this run says nothing about them.
-The axes measured are the ones the issue behind this section listed — the two
-hardcoded rates, `fair`, and the counter control. Anyone reading this as
-"schedule nothing" should read it as "schedule none of these four, and go
-measure the other three before concluding anything about the pool."
+| **FK occurrence** `rand(10)<1` | reg | 23/40 | 98/220 | 0 | **+11.8pp** `def-532` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none | the FK taker: every basket squad kicks from slot 9, so this is "more free kicks", never "more free kicks AND a better taker" |
+| | ko | 19/40 | 92/220 | 0 | +8.5pp `def-532` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none | shootout exposure — it is a property of the PAIRING, and the basket fixes both halves |
+| **Post play** `rand(10)<1.5` | reg | 16/40 | 52/220 | 0 | −5.0pp `role-433` vs `flat-433` @x4 | none | the PP2 shooter is drawn by `getPlayer`, so the row confounds "more post plays" with "who the draw lands on" |
+| | ko | 7/40 | 33/220 | 0 | −4.1pp `def-532` vs `shootonly-433` @x4 | none | same, plus FW count: 433 and 532 field three and two forwards, and `fwIdx.length` gates the branch |
+| **Counter** `THRESHOLD=5` | reg | 2/40 | 5/220 | 0 | −1.8pp `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @0% | none | the four sampled thresholds span 0% to 100%, but changing this constant reroutes RNG consumption, so outcomes need not interpolate between them |
+| | ko | **0/40** | 3/220 | 0 | +1.5pp (below bar) | none | as above. This is the control: it never produced a gate in either basket, which is the only behaviour that matters here |
+| **`fair`** default 5 | reg | 13/40 | 33/220 | **1** | **+11.4pp** `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @22 | none | `fair` is uniform across all 22 players here; per-player or per-position `fair` is a different (and unmeasured) axis |
+| | ko | 7/40 | 28/220 | 0 | +10.7pp `shootonly-433` vs `flat-433` @22 | none | keeper `defense`, which every extra penalty routes through — held fixed inside each template |
+| **Set-piece `dBonus`** 5 | reg | 15/50 | 56/275 | 0 | −1.7pp `def-532` vs `flat-433` @8 | none | it widens the DEFENDER's roll at FK1/FK2 only, and the taker is slot 9 in every basket squad. Five swept values, not four: 3..8 end to end with the default column carrying 5 |
+| | ko | 10/50 | 74/275 | 0 | +1.4pp `role-433` vs `shootonly-433` @8 | none | same, plus the shootout, which this axis does not touch (`takePkShot` has its own width) |
+| **Base `dBonus`** 8 | reg | 25/40 | 43/220 | 0 | +2.9pp `def-532` vs `flat-433` @6 | none | the widest-reaching of the seven — it is the defender roll for every non-set-piece contest — and still nothing re-prices |
+| | ko | 14/40 | 41/220 | 0 | +3.7pp `def-532` vs `shootonly-433` @6 | none | as above |
+| **PK attack noise** `rand(16)` | reg | 9/40 | 25/220 | 0 | +0.9pp `role-433` vs `def-532` @8 | none | in regulation it reaches only awarded penalties, which is why the row is nearly flat |
+| | ko | 25/40 | 102/220 | 0 | **+9.7pp** `role-433` vs `def-532` @8 | none | the shootout routes every kick through it, so knockouts feel it and regulation barely does — the largest mode split in the table, and still no gate |
+| **Zone press** `ratio * 3` | reg | **0/40** | **0/220** | 0 | −0.8pp `def-433` vs `flat-433` @4.5 | none | the axis #730 unblocked, and the only one in the file that moves NOTHING: zero significant deltas in either basket, in either mode |
+| | ko | **0/40** | **0/220** | 0 | +1.0pp `def-433` vs `def-532` @1.5 | none | as above. INERT rather than MARGINS — even the counter control clears the bar somewhere |
+
+**Nothing here becomes a candidate.** Fourteen of the sixteen rows move margins
+somewhere — the control included, once the wide basket is counted — and the one
+pairing that re-prices anything does so against a squad that was already tied for
+best. The two that move nothing at all are zone press, in both modes. The pass
+set at the plan's own activation gate is empty over both baskets.
+
+**The pool is now measured end to end, and nothing in it clears the gate.** An
+earlier run covered only four
+axes and said so: schedule none of those four, and go measure the other three
+before concluding anything about the pool. Those three — set-piece `dBonus`,
+base `dBonus` and penalty attack noise — are in the table above and land where
+the first four did.
+
+And the pool is now COMPLETE: the zone-press coefficient, the one parameter the
+plan named but forbade "until #730 decides the selector", is swept here too — the
+selector was decided, so the prohibition lapsed. It comes back INERT, the only
+axis in the file that moves no fixture in either basket in either mode.
+
+Two axes are covered END TO END, because the plan gives them ranges and the sweep
+spans them: set-piece `dBonus` over 3..8 (five swept values plus the default 5)
+and base `dBonus` over 6..10 (four plus the default 8). **Penalty attack noise
+and zone press are not**: §8 3.1 names their constants — `rand(16)` and
+`ratio * 3` — and no range, so this run picked ±25% and ±50% around each and the
+conclusions are bounded to 8..24 and 1.5..4.5. A rule proposing a value outside
+those spans is unmeasured, and these do not interpolate — changing them reroutes
+the RNG stream. **No axis produced a candidate that clears the gate: the largest
+gain reachable at ANY exposure weight, across all eight axes, both baskets and
+20,146 solved interior weights, is 0.00pp against a 5pp threshold.**
+
+**And that is a failure to distinguish, not a demonstration that nothing is
+there.** The distinction is the whole reading of this section, so it is worth
+being exact about. A gate cell is scored by pairing the swept optimum against the
+stale one; every one of the 99 cells per basket formed NO PAIR, because the
+swept optimum was already inside the default band. A cell that forms no pair
+contributes a zero gain, and 99 zeros is what produces the 0.00pp above — so the
+headline number is the ABSENCE of a resolvable contest, not the presence of a
+measured null. Whether an axis re-prices the decision is therefore **UNRESOLVED**
+on this evidence.
+
+What would resolve it is a sharper band. At its worst the default band holds 2 of
+the 5 narrow squads, with the edge 1.51pp from the leader, and 3 of 11 in the wide
+basket at 2.29pp: a band that wide absorbs any new leader before the gate can
+weigh it. A basket whose members sit further apart would shrink it. A lower bar
+would not — that would only relabel the same inability.
+
+One thing this is definitely NOT: "these constants do nothing". PK attack noise
+moves a knockout fixture by 9.7pp and base `dBonus` moves a regulation one by
+2.9pp; margins move everywhere, and the wide basket below changes the top build
+in 12 of 33 knockout cells. What none of that reaches is the gate.
+
+**Scope, stated once and plainly.** Every row above is measured at `cond` 5 on
+both sides, and production has not been that since #794 turned the form system
+on. `getPoint` reads condition in both its individual and its team term, so a
+swept threshold can interact with it; this run cannot see that interaction. So
+the claim this section supports is **no pool axis clears the gate under neutral
+conditions**, not "under production conditions" — closing that gap means
+re-running the pool over representative frozen condition states, which is a
+separate measurement and is not done here.
+
+**What that means for 3.1.** The pool produced no schedulable candidate, and
+this run cannot say whether that is because none exists or because its basket
+cannot resolve one. So 3.1's premise — that a weekly rule rotates which build is
+worth fielding — is **not supported by anything measured here, and not refuted
+either.** Two measurements would move it: a basket whose members sit further
+apart, which is what the unformed gates are asking for, and a rerun over
+production's condition states. Building the feature on this evidence would be
+building on an unresolved gate; shelving it permanently on this evidence would
+be over-reading the same gate in the other direction. That is a product call
+rather than a
+measurement one, and it is recorded on #733.
 
 The verdict is deliberately absent from the rows above: it belongs to the AXIS,
 not to a mode. The next section is where it is issued.
@@ -899,7 +970,7 @@ nothing, and no amount of simulation shrinks that. Nor can the difference be
 paired away: the leader and its weakest opponent are argmax and argmin picks
 that can change IDENTITY between the two conditions, so there is no fixed pair
 to difference. What this probe does instead is a 2-sigma DIRECTION screen at
-+3.0. It refuses far more than a corrected test would — that would sit near 6.4
++3.0. It refuses far more than a corrected test would — that would sit near 6.6
 — which is the safe direction for a gate whose job is to refuse. It is a
 heuristic, it says so in the probe's own legend, and it is not the plan's
 sentence. The plan does not put numbers on the feel bands, so the ones
@@ -917,10 +988,14 @@ new leader drawn FROM the band scores zero by construction.
 
 | Axis | Best value | Gate (ko weight 0.081) | dom | domAbs | draw | goals | Blocked by |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| FK occurrence | x0.25 | **0.00pp** | +0.4 | 0.4 | **+5.1pp** | −16% | gain — and it would also fail the draw band |
-| Post play | x0.25 | **0.00pp** | −0.1 | 0.0 | −1.0pp | +3% | gain |
-| Counter (control) | 0% | **0.00pp** | +0.7 | 0.9 | +1.4pp | −6% | gain |
-| `fair` | 1 | **0.00pp** | +0.5 | 0.6 | +3.6pp | −12% | gain |
+| FK occurrence | x0.25 | **0.00pp** | +0.1 | 0.3 | **+5.0pp** | −16% | gain — and it would also fail the draw band |
+| Post play | x0.25 | **0.00pp** | +0.7 | 1.1 | −1.1pp | +3% | gain |
+| Counter (control) | 0% | **0.00pp** | +0.4 | 0.8 | +1.4pp | −6% | gain |
+| `fair` | 1 | **0.00pp** | −0.2 | 0.2 | +3.7pp | −12% | gain |
+| Set-piece `dBonus` | 3 | **0.00pp** | +0.6 | 0.2 | −2.4pp | +8% | gain |
+| Base `dBonus` | 6 | **0.00pp** | −0.2 | 0.2 | **−5.1pp** | +22% | gain |
+| PK attack noise | 8 | **0.00pp** | +1.1 | 0.1 | +1.1pp | −4% | gain |
+| Zone press | x0.5 | **0.00pp** | +1.1 | 0.2 | −1.3pp | +5% | gain — and it is INERT, not MARGINS |
 
 `dom` is the CHANGE in the leader's weakest margin; `domAbs` is that margin
 itself, in the eleven-archetype basket. Both block, and the two are not
@@ -928,7 +1003,7 @@ interchangeable: a rule that leaves an already-dominant squad exactly where it
 stood scores a `dom` near zero while failing the requirement outright, which is
 why the absolute column exists at all. `domAbs` is the one carrying the plan's
 sentence — at or past the corrected bar, the same |z| the rest of this section
-uses, 4.53 at these sample sizes, one squad significantly beats every other,
+uses, 4.68 at these sample sizes, one squad significantly beats every other,
 which is what a dominant build is. `dom` is the direction screen described
 above, at a threshold this probe declares rather than quotes.
 
@@ -957,6 +1032,10 @@ table is not four verdicts.)
 | Post play | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
 | Counter (control) | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
 | `fair` | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
+| Set-piece `dBonus` | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
+| Base `dBonus` | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
+| PK attack noise | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
+| Zone press | 0.00pp | 0.00pp | 0.00pp |
 
 Those three points do not settle the interior on their own: each squad's
 weighted score is linear in the weight, the leader is their upper envelope, and
@@ -979,11 +1058,11 @@ on its own grid answers a different question. Evaluating every boundary, and
 inside every resulting interval its midpoint plus both ONE-SIDED limits (the
 gain jumps where the leader changes, so a shared endpoint reports the wrong
 squad), plus the weights where the two baskets' gain lines cross — that is where
-`min(narrow, wide)` peaks when their slopes oppose — comes to 9,816 probe
+`min(narrow, wide)` peaks when their slopes oppose — comes to 20,146 probe
 weights across every value:
 
 > **The largest gain reachable at ANY exposure weight is 0.00pp**, against a 5pp
-> threshold. At all 9,816 probe weights the swept optimum was already inside the
+> threshold. At all 20,146 probe weights the swept optimum was already inside the
 > default band in at least one basket.
 
 That statement deliberately carries no significance claim, and does not need
@@ -1017,8 +1096,8 @@ on every run instead of implying it did.
 
 **And the near miss is not a near miss.** FK x0.25 fails the gain gate outright —
 0.00pp, because the build it promotes was already inside the default band — and
-it would fail the draw band too, at +5.1pp against a +/-5pp limit. Its dominance
-is fine on the weighted season (+0.4 change, 0.4 absolute), which is worth
+it would fail the draw band too, at +5.0pp against a +/-5pp limit. Its dominance
+is fine on the weighted season (+0.1 change, 0.3 absolute), which is worth
 stating precisely: an earlier version of this section read dominance off the two
 pure modes and reported +4.4, and that was an artefact of not weighting. The
 candidate that looked closest to shippable still fails, but on the gain and the
@@ -1027,8 +1106,9 @@ feel band, not on concentration.
 ### What the control calibrates
 
 The counter trigger is in this sweep to check that the bar rejects things, and
-under a paired test it is **not** inert: 3 of 40 narrow fixture deltas clear the
-bar, and 12 of 440 across the wide basket's two modes. They are small — and no
+under a paired test it is **not** inert: 2 of its 80 narrow fixture deltas clear
+the bar (both in regulation; knockouts give 0 of 40), and 8 of 440 across the
+wide basket's two modes. They are small — and no
 value of it ever produced a gate, in either basket, at any exposure weight. That
 is the useful result:
 
@@ -1038,22 +1118,34 @@ is the useful result:
 
 It also supplies a floor. In the NARROW basket — same N, same ten fixtures on
 both sides, the only comparison here that is apples to apples — the largest
-movement this known non-lever produces is **2.0pp**. Anything a candidate does
+movement this known non-lever produces is **1.8pp**. Anything a candidate does
 that is not comfortably above that is not distinguishable from what a knob
 nobody would ship already does:
 
-| Axis | Mode | Largest fixture move | vs the control's 2.0pp |
+| Axis | Mode | Largest fixture move | vs the control's 1.8pp |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| FK occurrence | reg | 11.8pp | **6.0x** |
-| FK occurrence | ko | 8.8pp | **4.4x** |
-| `fair` | reg | 10.9pp | **5.5x** |
-| `fair` | ko | 10.9pp | **5.5x** |
-| Post play | reg | 4.8pp | 2.4x |
-| Post play | ko | 3.4pp | **1.7x** — the closest any candidate comes to the floor |
-
-The probe flags a row as indistinguishable from the control below **1.5x**, so
-post play in knockouts clears that line — but only just, and by less than any
-other candidate-mode pair in the table.
+| FK occurrence | reg | 11.8pp | **6.6x** |
+| FK occurrence | ko | 8.5pp | **4.8x** |
+| `fair` | reg | 11.4pp | **6.4x** |
+| `fair` | ko | 10.7pp | **6.0x** |
+| PK attack noise | ko | 9.7pp | **5.5x** |
+| Post play | reg | 5.0pp | 2.8x |
+| Post play | ko | 4.1pp | 2.3x |
+| Base `dBonus` | ko | 3.7pp | 2.1x |
+| Base `dBonus` | reg | 2.9pp | 1.6x |
+| Set-piece `dBonus` | reg | 1.7pp | **0.9x — inside the control's own noise** |
+| Set-piece `dBonus` | ko | 1.4pp | **0.8x — inside the control's own noise** |
+| PK attack noise | reg | 0.9pp | **0.5x — inside the control's own noise** |
+| Zone press | ko | 1.0pp | **0.6x — inside the control's own noise** |
+| Zone press | reg | 0.8pp | **0.5x — inside the control's own noise** |
+
+The probe flags a row as indistinguishable from the control below **1.5x**.
+Five of the fourteen candidate rows are below it — the control is the floor, so
+it is not one of them — and all five belong to the axes this run added: set-piece
+`dBonus` in both modes, PK noise in regulation, and zone press in both modes move
+a fixture LESS than a knob nobody would ship. PK noise in knockouts is the
+opposite case — 5.5x, fourth largest behind FK regulation at 6.6x and `fair` at
+6.4x and 6.0x — which is the shootout, and still no gate.
 
 The control is swept in BOTH baskets — that is what the gate needs — but this
 ratio is deliberately narrow-only on both sides. It compares a MAXIMUM over a
@@ -1065,43 +1157,53 @@ these ratios by a factor of two between runs that changed no measurement.
 ### Per axis, what actually moved
 
 **FK occurrence is the strongest axis, and what it does is CONCENTRATE.** From
-2.5% to 40% the regulation draw rate runs 57.9% -> 52.8% (shipped) -> 38.1% and
-goals per match 0.653 -> 0.779 -> 1.288. Every large delta at x4 has the same
+2.5% to 40% the regulation draw rate runs 57.7% -> 52.6% (shipped) -> 38.0% and
+goals per match 0.658 -> 0.787 -> 1.290. Every large delta at x4 has the same
 shape: the differentiated squads pull away from `flat-433` (`role-433` vs
-`flat-433` 68.4% -> 80.2% of the win-equivalent share). Turning it DOWN
-compresses the field instead — `flat-433`'s points per match rises 0.769 ->
-0.842 while every other squad's falls. So the axis is a skill-expression dial:
+`flat-433` 68.1% of the win-equivalent share at the shipped rate, +11.4pp of it
+at x4). Turning it DOWN
+compresses the field instead — `flat-433`'s own share rises 0.335 -> 0.368 while
+every other squad's falls. So the axis is a skill-expression dial:
 more free kicks means more of the match decided by who invested, less means more
 of it decided by nothing. Turning it down therefore costs on both feel gates at
 once — more draws AND fewer goals — and in knockouts alone it also raises the
-leader's weakest margin from z 6.3 to 8.9, which points at concentration rather
+leader's weakest margin from z 5.2 to 6.6, which points at concentration rather
 than rotation. Read that as the knockout-only reading it is: on the
 exposure-weighted season the same change is +0.4, well inside the direction
 screen, and the activation table above reports the weighted number.
 
 **`fair` is the only axis that ROTATES demand rather than amplifying it.**
-Raising it from 4.5% to 100% moves `shootonly-433` from 1.127 to 1.302 points
-per match in regulation and 1.370 to 1.518 in knockouts, while `role-433` and
-`def-433` stand still — more fouls means more free kicks and penalties, and
-those are converted by `shoot`. It carries the run's single reversal: `role-433`
-vs `def-433` goes from **47.5%** at the shipped default to **50.8%** at
-`fair 22`. Read that precisely — the DELTA is significant, the new level is a
+Raising it from the shipped 22.7% to 100% moves `shootonly-433`'s
+win-equivalent share from 0.451 to 0.498 in regulation and 0.456 to 0.505 in
+knockouts, while `role-433` and `def-433` stand still or fall — more fouls means
+more free kicks and penalties, and those are converted by `shoot`. It carries the
+run's single reversal: `role-433` vs `def-433` goes from **47.2%** at the shipped
+default to **50.3%** at `fair 22`. Read that precisely — the DELTA is significant, the new level is a
 coin flip. The rule turned "the defensive lean is better" into "there is no
 difference", which is a re-pricing; it did not turn it into "the attacking lean
 is better".
 
 `fair` is also the only axis whose regulation dominance column does not move
 (+0.0). At the midpoint (`fair 11`, 50%) it still moves four fixtures
-significantly while taking the draw rate DOWN, 52.8% -> 48.6%, and goals up,
-0.779 -> 0.899 — the one cell in the whole sweep whose feel side-effects point
+significantly while taking the draw rate DOWN, 52.6% -> 48.4%, and goals up,
+0.787 -> 0.903 — the one cell in the whole sweep whose feel side-effects point
 in a direction anyone would ask for.
 
-**Post play is the weakest candidate.** Its largest move is 2.4x the control's
-in regulation and 1.7x in knockouts — the closest any candidate comes to a knob
-that gates 3.9% of goals. It needs x4 (60% of box entries) to reach even that,
-the feel barely registers (draw rate +4.3pp, goals −0.095), and across all eight
-of its wide-basket cells — four swept values in each mode — the top of the
-eleven-archetype table never changes.
+**Set-piece `dBonus` is the weakest axis that moves anything at all.** Zone press
+is weaker and moves nothing: it is the only INERT row here, 0 significant deltas
+in either basket. Set-piece `dBonus` does clear the bar in 15 narrow and 56 wide
+regulation cells, but its largest move is 0.9x the control's in regulation and
+0.8x in knockouts — a knob that gates 3.9% of goals moves a fixture MORE than it
+does. The feel barely registers either —
+its regulation draw rate spans 50.2% to 55.9% across the whole 3..8 range — yet
+it still changes the top of the
+eleven-archetype knockout table in two of its ten wide-basket cells, which is
+the whole lesson of the wide basket restated: moving a table's top is cheap,
+and moving the decision is what the gate asks about.
+
+**Post play needs its whole range to reach 2.8x.** It gets there only at x4
+(60% of box entries), and the feel barely registers on the way (draw rate
++4.4pp, goals −0.096).
 
 **The counter trigger never gates.** Swept from "counters never happen" to
 "every eligible turnover becomes one", goals per match moved 0.036, the basket's
@@ -1117,8 +1219,7 @@ The narrow basket's biggest weakness is that five archetypes may simply not
 contain the alternative a rule rewards. So EVERY swept value of every axis — the
 control included, so it is checked on the same surface as the candidates — is
 re-asked over the ELEVEN archetypes the round-robin publishes, 55 fixtures,
-4,000 matches each. That is 34 cells; the probe prints them all, and the shape
-is simple enough to state:
+4,000 matches each. That is 68 cells, 34 per mode; the probe prints them all.
 
 Standings here are the **win-equivalent share** — the same 1 / 0.5 / 0 statistic
 the gate measures, so the leader they name is the squad the gate is then
@@ -1126,26 +1227,47 @@ evaluated on. Ranking by league points instead is not a monotonic
 transformation of it when draw rates differ, and these constants move draw rates
 by fifteen points.
 
-| Mode | Shipped rule's top four | Last | Cells whose top changed |
+| Mode | Shipped rule's top four | Last | Swept cells whose top changed |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| reg | `gkmin-433` .603, `def-433` .586, `def-532` .585, `role-433` .564 | `flat-433` .365 | **none of 16** |
-| ko | `role-433` .615, `gkheavy-433` .599, `def-433` .591, `def-532` .573 | `flat-433` .259 | **2 of 16**, both FK down |
-
-In regulation, `gkmin-433` leads every single cell — nothing moves the answer at
-any value of any axis. The two knockout exceptions are FK x0.25 and FK x0.5,
-which both promote `gkheavy-433` (+7.5pp z 4.7 and +6.0pp z 3.8 against
-`role-433`; 0.0pp against the tied band it belongs to). `flat-433` is last in 32
-of the 34 cells; the two it is not are FK x0.25 and x0.5 in regulation, where
-`stars-433` drops below it — that build wins and loses far more than it draws,
-so a metric that counts draws at half costs it more than a points table does.
-
-**That one axis-and-direction is the most interesting number in this section.**
-Read as a pair in both rules:
-
-> `gkheavy-433` vs `role-433`, knockout: **49.8% (z −0.3) at the shipped FK rate
-> -> 53.7% (z +4.7) at FK x0.25.** A coin flip becomes a significant win. Those
-> are shares; the +7.5pp above is the same reading as a win-rate advantage, which
-> is exactly twice the share advantage over 50%.
+| reg | `gkmin-433` .601, `def-532` .586, `def-433` .586, `role-433` .557 | `flat-433` .365 | **1 of 33** (`fair 22`, and not significantly) |
+| ko | `role-433` .603, `gkheavy-433` .597, `def-433` .595, `def-532` .572 | `flat-433` .258 | **12 of 33**, two of them significant |
+
+Regulation is almost immovable: `gkmin-433` leads 32 of the 33 swept cells, and
+the one exception (`fair 22`, where `def-532` reads .592 against `gkmin-433`'s
+.590) is not
+significant. `flat-433` is last in all 68 cells.
+
+**Knockouts are where the newly swept axes show up.** Twelve cells change the
+top build, and the two that do so significantly are `fk x0.25` (+9.8pp, z 6.2)
+and `pknoise 8` (+11.4pp, z 7.2), both promoting `gkheavy-433` over `role-433`;
+`pknoise 12` (+7.3pp, z 4.7) misses the corrected bar. Base `dBonus` and set-piece `dBonus` change the
+top in six more cells, none significantly.
+
+**Read the width axes as mean AND variance, not variance alone.** `randFloat(w)`
+is uniform on [0, w), so its mean is w/2: taking base `dBonus` from 8 to 10 does
+not just widen the defender's roll, it raises that defender's expected score from
+4 to 5, and narrowing it to 6 lowers the mean to 3. The kicker's PK roll moves the
+same way in the other direction. So the pattern — `fk 0.25`/`0.5`, `pknoise 8`/`12`
+and `dbonus 9`/`10` promoting the 29-point keeper, while `dbonus 6`/`7` and
+`pknoise 24` hand `def-433` the lead — is consistent with "whose contest is made
+decisive" AND with a straight shift in who is favoured on average, and this run
+cannot separate the two. A rule designer reading a mechanism off these rows would
+be guessing; separating them needs rolls centred on their shipped mean, which is
+a different experiment from the one the plan's parameter names.
+
+**None of it produces a gate.** The promoted build was already inside the
+default band every time — that is why the gate column reads 0.00pp for all seven
+axes while this table moves as much as it does. Changing which build is at the
+TOP of a table is not the same as re-pricing the DECISION, and this section is
+the clearest demonstration of the difference in the file.
+
+**The FK direction is the pair worth reading in full**, because the same
+promotion arrives three separate ways and this is the one with a shipped-rule
+baseline to compare against:
+
+> `gkheavy-433` vs `role-433`, knockout: **50.9% (z +1.1) at the shipped FK rate
+> -> 54.9% (z +6.2) at FK x0.25.** A coin flip becomes a significant win. Those
+> are shares; a win-rate advantage is exactly twice the share advantage over 50%.
 
 Mechanically that is coherent: fewer free kicks means fewer set-piece goals,
 more matches level at full time, more shootouts, and the 29-point keeper the
@@ -1169,31 +1291,32 @@ since none of these constants is scheduled.
 
 And it is worth **0.0pp at the activation gate** — in the mode with the LEAST
 exposure, since knockouts are cup-only and the cup runs once a day for the
-ladder's top 48. Two things reduce it from +7.5pp to nothing, and both are in
+ladder's top 48. Two things reduce it from +9.8pp to nothing, and both are in
 the activation section above. `gkheavy-433` is inside the shipped rule's
 unresolved top band, so a manager could already have been on it for free. And
-the same cell moves the draw rate +5.1pp, outside the +/-5pp band a rule change
-is allowed to move it, so even a real gain there would have been refused.
+the same cell moves the draw rate +5.0pp, at the edge of the +/-5pp band a rule
+change is allowed to move it, so even a real gain there would have been
+argued about before it shipped.
 
 Incidentally, the shipped rows above are an 11-archetype round-robin at 4,000
 matches per fixture — roughly seven times the 300 seeds behind the published
 table — and they agree with it where that table says it is decidable:
 `gkmin-433` clear at the top of regulation, `role-433` at the top of knockouts,
-`flat-433` at the bottom of all but two. The middle band still reorders between
+`flat-433` at the bottom of every one of the 68 cells. The middle band still reorders between
 the two runs, as that section says it must — and note that the bottom is where
 the metric matters: on a points table `stars-433` is above `flat-433`, and on
 the win-equivalent share the two swap in a couple of cells. The shipped `role-433` vs `def-433`
 fixture also independently reproduces the Skill's "solidity beats aggression"
-pair at 10,000 matches: the attacking lean takes 47.5% of the win-equivalent
-share in regulation and 53.1% in knockouts.
+pair at 10,000 matches: the attacking lean takes 47.2% of the win-equivalent
+share in regulation and 52.6% in knockouts.
 
-**Do not read that 47.5% against the Skill's 56.5%** — they are different
+**Do not read that 47.2% against the Skill's 56.5%** — they are different
 statistics on the same fact. The Skill quotes DECIDED matches, this section
 quotes the win-equivalent share, and half of all regulation matches are draws,
 so the share is compressed toward 50 exactly as the round-robin correction above
-warns. The knockout figures (53.1% here, 53.6% there) are directly comparable,
-because knockout draws are vanishingly rare — zero in the 5,440,000 knockout matches
-this run played, though not structurally impossible.
+warns. The knockout figures (52.6% here, 53.6% there) are directly comparable,
+because knockout draws are vanishingly rare — zero in the 10,880,000 knockout
+matches this run played, though not structurally impossible.
 
 ### Degrees of freedom this sweep LEFT free
 
@@ -1211,12 +1334,18 @@ uncontrolled degree of freedom each time. So, explicitly:
   and the zone press, the team-contribution terms and possession all read it.
 - **Set-piece slots.** `squad-lib` pins the FK taker to slot 9 and the penalty
   taker to slot 10 for every candidate. The FK rows are the RATE axis only.
-- **Slot order.** Identical across the basket, which pins the broken zone-press
-  fallback to the same position in all of them. Held constant, not measured.
+- **Slot order.** Identical across the basket. It used to carry a confound —
+  the zone-press fallback made the first non-GK slot a hidden lever — and #730
+  removed it, so the zone-press rows here are not contaminated by it. Held
+  constant either way, and not measured.
 - **Interactions.** One axis moves at a time. Nothing here says what FK x4 does
   while `fair` is 22, and a pool built from two axes at once is untested.
-- **`cond`.** Fixed at 5 everywhere, as production does today. A form system
-  would invalidate every row.
+- **`cond`.** Fixed at 5 everywhere, and production no longer is: #794 turned
+  the form system on, so competitive matches now arrive with per-player
+  conditions derived and frozen at claim time. `getPoint` reads `cond` in both
+  the individual and the team term, so a swept threshold can interact with it,
+  and **every row here is a neutral-condition row.** That is the single largest
+  scope limit on this section's conclusion — see the verdict, which states it.
 - **Opponent population.** Archetypes, not the live ladder — and production bots
   are a single build, which is neither.
 
@@ -4830,3 +4959,267 @@ few points, as any change to who presses must.
   original expression cannot be recovered.
 
 5,648,400 matches in about a minute. Whole run: `zp-selector.mts`.
+
+## Do the six pog axis candidates move the outcome, and are any of them a decision? (`pog-axes.mts`)
+
+Six candidates for the pog playbook (issue #809, gate G0): `balance`, `line`,
+`press`, `build`, `keeper`, `set_piece`. Every one ships as a **selection**
+preference — abilities stay frozen from creation (F-6) and a playbook only
+chooses who starts, at which position, and who takes kicks. This probe
+measures by sweeping 212-point TEMPLATES: the question is whether the engine
+is sensitive to the profile difference at all; selection realizes it
+discretely, checked separately in a 17-player-pool companion measurement.
+
+Five of the six realizations change `squad-lib.mts`'s `build()` inputs;
+`set_piece` instead reassigns the already-built team's `fkKicker`/`pkKicker`
+flags directly (`build()` itself hardcodes those flags onto slots 9/10, so
+this is still a 212-template property, just set via a different code path).
+`D_*_APPR` (issue #745) is the one axis that patches the engine, via the
+`appr-role.mts`/#728 exact-match-count-asserted source-replace pattern.
+
+Eight Codex review rounds (41 findings total, 1 deferred to a follow-up
+issue rather than fixed inline — see "What Codex found") progressively
+hardened the isolation guarantees. Highlights load-bearing for the tables
+below: `balance`/`press` pin the goalkeeper BYTE-IDENTICAL to the base
+squad, including for `mid`. `line` (round 8) instead clones all 11 existing
+players byte-for-byte and relabels only the `position` field to the new
+formation's slot — no attribute rebuild at all, so no GK-pinning pipeline
+is even needed for this axis. `D_*_APPR`'s focus policies override the
+argmax player's selection weight to 1,000,000 (not 1024 — see "What Codex
+found"). `set_piece` ranks FK/PK candidates independently by the actual
+engine formula: `getPoint`/`takePkShot` show both use `atkSkill + cond/2 +
+total/3 + roll`, and FK's single `fkKicker` flag triggers a 50/50 mix of a
+shoot-based and a pass-based branch, so the expected-value-optimal ranking
+for BOTH roles is `(pass+shoot)/2 + total/3` — with a tie-break that keeps
+the two roles on different players. This still omits `ofTeamContrib`, a
+team-aggregate term `getPoint` also adds — round 8's Finding 1, deferred
+(see "What Codex found").
+
+### Method
+
+Four cores (`flat`, `shaped`, `gkheavy`, `gkmin`). Each axis is a `low`/`mid`/
+`high` ladder; `low`/`high` change exactly one dimension of `build()`'s
+inputs (see `docs/pog/02-axes-measurement.md` §2). Opponent grid = the same
+four cores, both modes, `N=20,000` per cell, seeds keyed on
+`(axis, myCoreKey, oppCoreKey, mode)`. Bonferroni family size (m=706)
+computed analytically before any comparison runs. Non-monotone requires BOTH
+ladder legs to individually clear the bar with opposite signs, on the
+self-play cell. Opponent-conditional requires a candidate to beat both
+others at the same bar, for each opponent.
+
+Adoption is judged on "significant against any of the 4 opponents", which
+does not always match the displayed self-play row alone — both counts are
+now reported side by side for reconciliation (see Result below).
+
+Controls: patch-identity; mirror cells; a `D_*_APPR` policy mirror; a live
+assertion that no knockout match returns a null winner; every 17-player
+pool's full 2^17=131,072 possible 11-subsets checked and validated; and the
+reported grand total checked against a value computed analytically from the
+loop structure.
+
+### Result
+
+| axis | adopted | sig (self-play only) | sig (any of 4 opp) | max \|Δ\| pp | non-monotone | opponent-conditional |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| `balance` | yes | 7/8 | 8/8 | 33.89 | **0/8** | **0/8** |
+| `line` | yes | 8/8 | 8/8 | 22.87 | 1/8 | 3/8 |
+| `press` | yes | 7/8 | 8/8 | 39.88 | 2/8 | **7/8** |
+| `build` | yes | 7/8 | 8/8 | 12.52 | 1/8 | 0/8 |
+| `keeper` | yes | 8/8 | 8/8 | 19.02 | **0/8** | **0/8** |
+| `set_piece` | yes | 8/8 | 8/8 | 11.38 | 4/8 | 0/8 |
+
+All six adopted (judged on the any-opponent column, matching the code's
+adoption rule); `line`/`press`/`build`/`set_piece` non-monotone,
+`balance`/`keeper` cleanly monotone. G0 passes (4 of 6 non-monotone, above
+the 2-required bar). `press` remains the strongest trade-off: 7 of 8
+core×mode cells have a supported leader that flips across the 4-opponent
+grid. `set_piece`'s `flat` core is no longer an exact 0.00pp tie (as in
+round 4) — it now shows a small but genuinely significant effect
+(+0.29/+0.33pp) once the ranking criterion includes `total/3`, which makes
+`slotTotals()`'s rounding-driven total differences the real tiebreaker
+instead of array order. Round 6 additionally found FK's ranking was missing
+half its own mechanic (see "What Codex found").
+
+`D_*_APPR` (#745's three questions): `focus-total` is now restricted to
+FORWARDS specifically (round 7 — searching all outfielders let a DF win the
+argmax whenever rounding gave one the squad's top total, e.g. `gkheavy`'s
+19-point DF against 18-point forwards, silently testing "focus on whoever
+has the most points" rather than #745's actual forward-specific claim). The
+picture sharpened considerably: only `shaped` (STARS weighting, clearly
+uneven totals with forwards on top) benefits from `focus-total`
+(+16.65/+19.80pp); the other three cores, where totals are flatter or a
+forward isn't the max, take a LARGE loss from forcing defensive duty onto a
+forward (−30 to −46pp) — a much more precise reproduction of #745's own
+conditional claim ("only works when totals are uneven") than the
+all-position version showed. The reversal boundary is confirmed in both
+modes at outfield total-spread 17 (`focus-total` wins, z=36.61 REG / 30.03
+KO); at every lower spread tested (1, 6, 11) `focus-defense` wins
+confirmed, now by far larger margins (up to −47.6pp) since the two policies
+target genuinely different players. Opponent-conditional: 0/8.
+
+**17-pool realizability (exploratory, not gating)**: same construction as
+before (three pools of 17, all 2^17 subsets checked). Two limitations now
+documented, pulling in OPPOSITE directions: (1, round 5) the pool assumes
+each of the 17 individuals' POSITION and kicker flags are fixed at their
+build-time template, but `AGENTS.md` states F-6 freezes ABILITY VALUES
+only, not "pool membership, mutable unminted positions/names, or FK/PK
+choices" — the real product may allow repositioning or kicker reassignment
+this check cannot see, understating realizability; (2, round 7) an
+alternate's total is copied from the slot it replaces, which squad-lib's
+own `slotTotals()` clamps to [10,29] — wider than the production FA
+generator's actual reachable range of 16-28 (`AGENTS.md` §3-16). `pool-shaped`/
+`pool-gkheavy` do produce alternates outside that window (as low as 12, as
+high as 29 — a keeper on `pool-gkheavy`), i.e. synthetic reserves the real
+generator could never mint, which OVERSTATES realizability for any verdict
+depending on one. This exploratory check does not net the two limitations
+against each other — the true direction is unresolved. Full table and
+caveats: `docs/pog/02-axes-measurement.md` §6.
+
+### What Codex found, and what changed (eight review rounds, 41 findings)
+
+Rounds 1–4 are summarized in `docs/pog/02-axes-measurement.md` §7 (GK
+weight-share leaks across three different axes and two different root
+causes, cross-slot scarcity-repair leaks, unvalidated/undersized/
+misnamed pool XIs, unsupported opponent-conditional argmax, combined then
+still-colliding FK/PK selection, proportional instead of concentrated
+`D_*_APPR` policies, `mid` built through a different algorithm than
+`low`/`high`, several doc-accuracy corrections).
+
+**Round 5 (2 P1, 2 P2)** — new defects inside rounds 1–4's fixes:
+
+- `D_*_APPR`'s focus-weight override of 1024 (round 3's fix) wasn't large
+  enough: in the highest-competition scenes (A0/A1, where up to 4 DF plus
+  the GK each carry ~100 stock weight, summing to ~500), 1024 only bought
+  the focal player 62-72% of the draw rather than near-total concentration
+  (measured on `shaped`/A0). `appr-role.mts`'s 1024 was calibrated for the
+  offence table's much smaller competing sums, not this one. Raised to
+  1,000,000 — a three-orders-of-magnitude safety margin that guarantees
+  >99.9% share regardless of competing weight.
+- `set_piece`'s FK/PK ranking (round 4's independent-selection fix) still
+  ranked by the bare `shoot` / `(pass+shoot)/2` stat alone, omitting the
+  `total/3` term `getPoint` and `takePkShot` actually add to the kicker's
+  point. On `flat` (every outfielder has identical `shoot`), ties were
+  broken by JS's stable-sort array order — which happened to correlate with
+  `slotTotals()`'s rounding drift (a couple of slots get one extra total
+  point) — landing the "worst" AND "best" ranking on the same higher-total
+  DF/DMF slot while `mid` uses the FW slots, manufacturing a discontinuity
+  unrelated to kicker quality. Including `total/3` makes ties genuine
+  engine-level ties rather than rounding artifacts wearing a tie's mask.
+- Two P2s: the 17-pool check doesn't model that unminted players' positions
+  and kicker flags are mutable in the real product (`AGENTS.md`) — documented
+  as a lower-bound limitation rather than modeled (modeling it properly needs
+  a lineup solver, P1-2's job); and the "significant" cell counts didn't
+  match the displayed self-play rows (adoption is judged on "any of 4
+  opponents", which a reader can't verify from the self-play table alone) —
+  now both counts are reported side by side.
+
+**Round 6 (1 P1)** — a new defect inside round 5's own fix:
+
+- `set_piece`'s FK ranking (round 5's `total/3` fix) still measured only
+  HALF of the `fkKicker` mechanic. `doFk` sends every free kick through one
+  50/50 coin flip between `doFkDirect` (`getPoint(..., 'shoot', SCENE.FK1)`)
+  and `doFkCross` (`getPoint(..., 'pass', SCENE.FK2)`) — the same single
+  flag governs both branches. Ranking by `shoot + total/3` alone matched
+  only the direct-kick half in isolation (presumably what
+  `docs/tactics/00-plan.md`'s narrower "FK=shoot" finding itself measured),
+  not the blended mechanic the flag actually controls. Reading `getPoint`
+  directly confirmed both branches use the identical
+  `atkSkill + cond/2 + total/3 + roll` shape with only `atkSkill` swapped
+  between `shoot` and `pass`, so the expected-value-optimal FK ranking is
+  `(shoot+pass)/2 + total/3` — the same formula PK already uses. The two
+  roles now genuinely converge on the same "best all-round kicker" ranking,
+  which is the correct consequence of the engine's real mechanics, not a
+  bug — it just means round 4's "PK falls to the next-best candidate when
+  it ties with FK's pick" tie-break now fires on nearly every ladder cell
+  instead of occasionally.
+
+**Round 7 (1 P1, 4 P2)** — new defects inside earlier rounds' fixes:
+
+- `D_*_APPR`'s `focus-total` searched the argmax total across ALL outfield
+  positions, not specifically forwards — #745's own claim names "your
+  biggest FORWARD" explicitly. On `gkheavy` (19-point DF vs 18-point
+  forwards) and the B3 boundary's alpha=0 squad, rounding made a DF the
+  squad-wide max, so `focus-total` was silently testing "focus on whoever
+  has the most points" rather than #745's forward-specific policy.
+  Restricting the search to `position === 'FW'` sharpened the picture
+  considerably (see Result above): only `shaped` (clearly uneven totals,
+  forwards on top) benefits, and the other three cores take a large loss
+  (−30 to −46pp) from forcing defensive duty onto a forward — a much more
+  precise reproduction of #745's conditional claim than the all-position
+  version showed.
+- Four P2s: both documents still described FK's ranking as `shoot + total/3`
+  even after round 6 corrected the code to `(pass+shoot)/2 + total/3` —
+  fixed to match the committed treatment; the probe's own header comment
+  claimed all six axes are template-input changes via `build()`, when
+  `set_piece` actually reassigns already-built kicker flags directly — now
+  distinguished; the header also still claimed `mid` is "always the bare
+  core", which stopped being true for `balance`/`press`/`line` once round 4
+  rebuilt `mid` through the same pinned pipeline as `low`/`high` (the exact
+  difference round 4 used to find `balance`'s spurious reversal) — corrected
+  to state the real per-axis contract; and the 17-pool's bench alternates can
+  carry totals outside the production FA generator's actual reachable range
+  of 16-28 (`AGENTS.md` §3-16) — as low as 12, as high as 29 for a keeper —
+  documented as a SECOND limitation pulling in the OPPOSITE direction from
+  round 5's position/kicker-flexibility one (this one makes some "가능"/
+  "부분" verdicts optimistic rather than conservative; the two are not
+  netted against each other).
+
+**Round 8 (2 P1)** — new defects inside earlier rounds' fixes:
+
+- **[Fixed]** `line`'s realization conflated formation change with attribute
+  reallocation. `AGENTS.md` states F-6 freezes ABILITY VALUES only —
+  unminted players' position labels and FK/PK assignments stay mutable — but
+  the pre-round-8 `line` implementation rebuilt the outfield through
+  `buildGkPinnedVariant` using the new formation's mix ratios, so a position
+  change also dragged along an attribute redistribution the real product
+  doesn't require. Rewritten to clone all 11 existing players (GK included)
+  byte-for-byte and relabel only `position` to the new formation's slot —
+  `buildGkPinnedVariant` is no longer needed for this axis at all, since no
+  attribute is touched. The now-dead `avgOutfieldWeightByPosition()` helper
+  was deleted. Re-measured: `flat` (EVEN weighting, where the old and new
+  approaches coincide by construction) is byte-identical; the other three
+  cores show smaller, more isolated formation-only effects (e.g. `shaped`
+  −8.43→−5.00pp) — the axis's own max \|Δ\| drops from 32.20pp to 22.87pp.
+  Non-monotone/opponent-conditional classification is unchanged (1/8, 3/8) —
+  only the magnitude was wrong, not the qualitative call.
+- **[Deferred to a follow-up issue]** `set_piece`'s FK/PK ranking
+  (`(shoot+pass)/2 + total/3`, fixed in rounds 5–6) omits `ofTeamContrib`,
+  the team-aggregate term `getPoint`'s full formula also adds:
+  `ofPoint = ofPlayerP + ofTeamContrib`, where `ofTeamContrib =
+  (atkCondSum*atkRate*0.075 + atkAttrSum*atkRate*0.1) * (teamPow/100)`.
+  Codex supplied a concrete counterexample on the `flat` core where including
+  this term could flip the top-ranked candidate. Closing this gap requires
+  extracting the engine's `O_*_RATE` tables and `teamPow` computation — new
+  engine-internals research outside this issue's (#809) measurement scope.
+  Per the coordinator's round-7 scope-management guidance, this was left as a
+  documented "KNOWN LIMITATION" code comment rather than extending the review
+  loop further, and tracked in a separate GitHub issue (linked from PR #840)
+  instead. It does not affect `set_piece`'s own adopted/non-monotone verdict —
+  the current ranking already captures the dominant term of the real
+  mechanism; only a secondary correction term is missing.
+
+### What it means
+
+- **G0 passes.** 6/6 adopted, 4/6 non-monotone. `docs/pog/02-axes-measurement.md`
+  has the full write-up and all eight review rounds' changelogs.
+- **The realizability column's direction is explicitly unresolved, not
+  presented as a clean lower bound** — round 7 found a second limitation
+  (out-of-range synthetic reserves) pulling the opposite way from round 5's
+  (position/kicker flexibility), and this exploratory check does not net
+  them. Important for W1's planning: some "불가능" verdicts could turn
+  "가능" once P1-2 builds a real fixture, but some "가능" verdicts here
+  could also turn out to be unreachable.
+- **Every finding across all eight rounds lived inside a FIX, not the
+  original measurement design** — the generalizable lesson: a control that
+  checks the harness is unbiased (mirror, patch-identity) says nothing about
+  whether a specific numeric choice (a weight constant, a ranking formula, an
+  allocator) actually matches the real mechanism it's meant to approximate.
+  Each of those needed independent verification against the actual engine
+  formula or actual competing magnitudes, not just "does the effect look
+  directionally right."
+
+14,066,000 matches in 182.5s (N=20,000, round-8 re-run — the loop structure
+is unchanged so the match count is identical, only wall-clock varies between
+runs; self-checked against the loop structure). The default `N=6,000`
+reaches the same G0 PASS verdict in about a third of the time. Whole run:
+`pog-axes.mts`.