Multiplayer Quick-Rounds Curated Corpus — Starter Set¶

Status: Draft for review (2026-05-30). 8 hand-authored scenarios spanning maximum cube-vector diversity. Surfaces here before deciding the production destination (SQL migration vs scripts/data/scenarios.json vs new table).

Why this exists: Multiplayer currently relies on live AI generation, which takes several minutes per call — untenable for lobby flow. See [[project-multiplayer-curated-corpus-gap]]. The cube doc's path-back-to-live notes the curated multiplayer corpus is the unblock for re-integrating the structural cube vector into the live prompt.

Design pin for multiplayer: axis 7 (authority) = collective-vote on every scenario. Each player has a vote; peer dynamics are surfaced explicitly — named other voters with stated leanings, plus the cost of being-seen-voting-X-way (group-observed live + deferred-audit when the vote record is published).

Note on review-only metadata: the Driver: tag on each option, the Multiplayer note: block per scenario, and the cube vector header are all review/design surface — none of this is shown to the player. In production a player sees only: scan strip → cast block → description → 4 option labels and option descriptions. The driver field persists on the scenario record for backend scoring; the multiplayer note and cube vector header are doc-only.

Revised 2026-05-30 (v0.2): every scenario's deadline is now earned by a named external mechanism — counterparty event with a date, calendar fact, decaying physical/operational window, or named default that fires if no decision is made. The earlier draft (v0.1) had deadlines tagged on axis 2 but not justified in the prose, leaving readers asking "who set that clock and why can't I push it?" Generator Principle 8 (v1.8.2) and the cube doc's axis 2 content-rule sibling note now codify the rule for all future scenarios.

Revised 2026-05-31 (v0.3): three rigor fixes applied against the May 31 cube-iteration notes (cube-prompt-iteration-notes.md): - §4 Hold the Precedent — authority-prose bias (Bias 6) fix. Cast includes Lord Regent (convener) + Faction leaders; v0.2 didn't explicitly close "who decides," risking that the player would misread their collective-vote authority as subordinate to the convener. Added one sentence: "Each councillor casts one vote on the roll; the Lord Regent convenes but does not vote." - §6 Retro Naming and §8 Renewal — cost asymmetry across options (Bias 7) fix. v0.2 had some options stated in concrete costs (numeric, named-person) and others in softer/conditional language ("if anything leaks", "insiders know that means", "messy"). The softer framing read as lower-cost for the wrong reason — apparent risk asymmetry rather than genuine values weighting. Rewritten to parallel concreteness (§6 option B now names the two/two lead split + private-conversation consequence; §8 options C and D now state concrete € amounts and named audit-committee consequences). - Live DB updated via migration 113. Cube vectors unchanged — these are prose-level rigor fixes, not structural redesigns.

C2 tags (fully closed 2026-06-02): Three migrations land C2 across the corpus. - Migration 115 adds scenarios.expertise_requirement (text, constrained to low | moderate | high | expert-only) and populates it for all 8 multiplayer rows with audited values (§1 moderate, §2 low, §3 moderate, §4 moderate, §5 moderate, §6 low, §7 high, §8 high — same as the May 31 audit's provisional assignments). - Migration 116 backfills the 328 solo curated rows with a uniform pre-audit baseline of low, defensible per the cube doc rule ("default to low when expertise is genuinely not a factor") but explicitly NOT a per-row audit. The column comment documents this so downstream cross-domain stratification knows to treat solo curated rows as pre-audit until a deliberate solo-corpus audit lands. The 122 ai-generated rows that pre-date v1.10.0 stay null. - Generator wire-through (v1.10.0+). GeneratedScenario.expertiseRequirement and toDbScenario.expertise_requirement are wired so AI-generated rows from v1.10.0 onwards persist their planning-block C2 value to the column. sanitizeScenario falls back to planning.cubeVector.expertiseRequirement if the top-level field is missing from the model's response.

Solo corpus heuristic C2 audit (2026-06-02, migration 117): Replaced the uniform baseline with a heuristic per-row promotion using a Python classifier saved at scripts/c2_heuristic_classifier.py. Pattern rules: default = low; promote to moderate on M&A / corporate-law jargon, audit / regulatory mechanics, legal procedure terms a non-lawyer would recognize, estate-law terms, claims processing language, DAO / governance-token terms, sci-fi technical reasoning, and whistleblower / constitutional-procedure mechanics; promote to high on specialist legal procedure at depth, clinical-trial / FDA depth, securities-law depth, infosec-plus-legal combos, and military / classified frameworks. Final solo curated distribution across 328: 277 low (84.5%) / 50 moderate (15.2%) / 1 high (0.3%). Spot-checks against the cube definition look defensible; under-promotion is the conservative direction per the cube doc's "default to low" rule.

Remaining open: deliberate per-row solo audit — the heuristic catches roughly 60-70% of moderates (estimated against a 35-row inline sample). Rows the heuristic missed will stay tagged low until a deliberate audit pass refines them. Subtle moderates without trigger keywords (e.g., a sports-finance scenario about salary-cap math that uses the phrase "salary cap" only in the option text, not the description) are the typical miss. Re-run scripts/c2_heuristic_classifier.py to refresh classifications after pattern edits.

Revised 2026-06-02 (v0.4): authority-closure pass on §1, §2, §3 per the v1.10.0 Bias 6 extended rule. §1 — explicit "The six leads vote by show of hands at 4:25pm" added before the CFO-default consequence. §2 — explicit "The seven councillors vote in the chapter house; Cleever does not vote — he executes whichever option carries" added, since Cleever's executor-not-voter role previously lived only in the cast block. §3 — explicit "All nine members vote tonight; five votes carries — Idris's co-founder role gives him weight in the room but not on the ballot" added, since the threshold previously lived only in the scan strip. §4/§6/§8 already had authority closure from v0.3; §5/§7 already had it inline. Migration 114 applied to live DB. Cube vectors unchanged.

Diversity span across the 8 scenarios — the table below shows that each cube axis is deliberately varied. Coverage of the corpus gaps the cube doc named: all 4 default-outcome values present (incl. favors-inaction-static and favors-action, both 0% in the existing corpus); meaningful stakes present; small-group / dyad / future-gen scopes present; full reversibility present.

#	Theme	Cat	Cmt	Dline	Horizn	Rev	Scope	Dist	Info	Agency	Vis	Stakes	Default	C1
1	Boardroom	resource	none	mins	months	part-perm	small-grp	intimate(self)	symm	strategic	grp+def-aud	serious	forces-ch	rel × fin × repu
2	Rebuild	gov	soft	hours	lifelong	none	small-grp	close	mu-intrinsic	static	grp-obs	life-def	forces-ch	phys × rel
3	Underground	values	strong	hours	years	part-perm	small-grp	close	you-know-more	reactive	priv+def-aud	life-def	forces-ch	integ × phys × rel
4	Court	gov	strong	weeks	lifelong	part-perm	future-gen	inst-abstr	symm	strategic	publicly-obs	serious	favors-inact-static	integ × repu
5	Frontier	resource	none	mins	lifelong	none	small-grp	close	mu-intrinsic	static	grp-obs	life-def	forces-ch	phys × devel
6	Boardroom	team-dyn	soft	days	months	full	small-grp	close	symm	reactive	grp+def-aud	meaningful	favors-inact-dyn	rel × devel × repu
7	Court	values	none	hours	lifelong	part-perm	dyad	stranger	they-know-more	strategic	publicly-obs	serious	forces-ch	integ × repu
8	Boardroom	resource	soft	days	years	part-recov	institution	inst-abstr	mu-resolvable	strategic	grp+def-aud	serious	favors-action	fin × devel × repu

1. The Friday Cut List¶

Cube vector — theme: boardroom · category: resource-allocation · trigger: resource_constraint prior=none · deadline=minutes · horizon=months · reversibility=partial-permanent · scope=small-group · distance=intimate(self) · authority=collective-vote · info=symmetric-complete · agency=strategic · visibility=group-observed + deferred-audit · stakes=serious · default=forces-choice · C1=relational × financial × reputational

Deadline mechanism: named default that fires — the CFO's default list goes into Quill's data room overnight if no room decision is made by adjournment, anchored to Quill's IC date + COO's travel window.

Multiplayer note: the strongest version of "self-stake in a collective vote" — across the four options, every named lead (including the player-equivalents at the table) appears on at least one cut list. Whichever option you vote for, you may be voting to keep yourself or cut yourself.

Scan strip¶

you_are: one of six leads, Halcyon Robotics, 110-person hardware startup
what_happened: payroll has to drop €1.4M in 90 days or the next funding tranche dies
deadline: 25 min; otherwise CFO's default list goes into data room overnight
question: which two of the room get cut?

Cast block¶

Britt Solano — head of community partnerships, 9 years — authored the four cut-lists; has put her own name on one
Jaspreet Kaur — design lead, 2 years — appears on lists A and C
Mira Adeyemi — engineering lead, 3 years — appears on list C
Toren Volk — sales lead, 5 years — appears on list A

Description (≈220 words)¶

You're one of six leads at Halcyon Robotics. The CFO just walked the room through the cap-table math: payroll has to drop by €1.4M annualized within 90 days or Quill Partners (your lead investor) doesn't close the next tranche.

Britt Solano has put four cut-lists on the screen. Each saves the same money. Each cuts two of the people in this room — including, on some lists, you.

"I'm not pretending this isn't political," Britt says. "But the COO will rubber-stamp whatever we agree to, and we have to live with the room afterward."

Why now: Quill's investment committee meets Wednesday; the term sheet requires the payroll-line adjustment in the data room by 6am Thursday. The COO flies out for Quill's investor day at 5pm tonight, unreachable until Friday. The lead-team adjourns at 4:25pm. If the room hasn't decided by then, the CFO's default list (option A, by tenure floor) goes into the data room overnight on his recommendation alone.

The six leads vote by show of hands at 4:25pm; refusing to vote reads as voting for the CFO's default. Anyone cut loses their seat and their unvested equity (€180K–€340K each). Your vote is recorded in the minutes that accompany the data-room submission.

Options¶

A. Cut by tenure floor — Driver: principle. The two least-tenured leads go (Jaspreet and you, if you're under 4 years). Cleanest defense; reads to Quill as rule-based. Locks the room into a rule it can't unmake.
B. Cut by margin contribution — Driver: efficiency. Britt and Toren keep their roles; the two whose functions can't be tied to next-quarter revenue go. Optimizes the financials; the room reads it as Britt rewriting her own protection.
C. Cut to preserve the BD pipeline — Driver: pragmatism. You and Britt stay; Jaspreet and Mira are cut. Halcyon ships less product this year but closes deals; engineering re-hires later if Quill's tranche lands.
D. Spread the pain — 20% pay cut across all six — Driver: team_harmony. Nobody leaves the room, everyone takes a base cut. Doesn't satisfy Quill's payroll-line requirement; the COO will likely override and pick a list himself.

Tensions surfaced¶

individual-vs-collective-good, people-vs-outcomes, pragmatism-vs-principle, transparency-vs-privacy

2. Gate Vote at Saltwell¶

Cube vector — theme: rebuild · category: governance · trigger: ethical_dilemma prior=soft · deadline=hours · horizon=lifelong · reversibility=none · scope=small-group · distance=close · authority=collective-vote · info=mutual-uncertainty-intrinsic · agency=static · visibility=group-observed · stakes=life-defining · default=forces-choice · C1=physical × relational

Deadline mechanism: decaying physical window (fevered won't survive a second night on the road) + named default that fires (gate stays closed by default if the council doesn't vote by sundown) + calendar fact (wolves at the perimeter after dark).

Multiplayer note: the council votes in plain sight in the chapter house. Every vote is named to every other voter and to the gate captain who executes it. The mu-intrinsic info topology means no amount of further deliberation resolves the uncertainty — risk-handling, not information-seeking.

Scan strip¶

you_are: Saltwell Steering Council member, 240-person settlement
what_happened: caravan of 22 arrived at the gate; 3 adults running fevers, can't be tested
deadline: votes at sundown (~6h); gate stays closed if undecided
question: admit, quarantine, partial-admit, or turn away?

Cast block¶

Marennie Pell — settlement nurse, 8 years — only diagnostic authority; has named she'll resign on options B or C
Dayo Olabode — Coalition runner, brother-in-law to Marennie — among the well; his two children are among the fevered
Cleever Wynn — gate captain — will execute the vote; has said "B is the longest miserable death I can think of"

Description (≈245 words)¶

You're one of seven on the Saltwell Steering Council. Three years after the Collapse, your settlement of 240 holds because the gate has held. Yesterday a caravan reached the perimeter — 22 people, including 7 children, asking for sanctuary. Three adults have fevers.

The council meets in the chapter house at sundown.

Why sundown: Marennie, the settlement's only nurse, says the fevered won't survive a second night on the road. The 22 outsiders can't camp at the perimeter — wolves run this stretch after dark. And Cleever, the gate captain, won't hold an undecided line into darkness; without a vote by sundown, the gate stays closed by default.

What you don't know: Marennie can't test for the bone-fever — the strain that killed eleven Saltwell residents last winter. The fevers could be road-exhaustion. They could be the strain. There's no way to find out before the vote.

What you do know: of the 22, three are Coalition runners who held a supply route open for Saltwell through the worst of last year. One is Dayo, Marennie's brother-in-law. He's well; two of the fevered are his children.

The seven councillors vote in the chapter house; Cleever does not vote — he executes whichever option carries. Whoever you turn away dies on the road; whoever you let in could carry the strain.

Options¶

A. Admit all, no quarantine — Driver: principle. Sanctuary is sanctuary; testing fevers in the cold kills people slower than the road does. You bet the settlement on Marennie's diagnosis of road-fatigue.
B. Quarantine all 22 for 14 days in the gate-house — Driver: caution. Rations through the slot. Two of the fevered may die without warmth. Marennie resigns; Coalition trust frays — Dayo will not forget.
C. Admit the 19 healthy, turn the 3 fevered away — Driver: pragmatism. The sick return to the road with rations; their odds drop to near-zero. Marennie threatens to resign.
D. Turn all 22 away — Driver: autonomy. The gate exists for this; the settlement decides its own membership. Two councillors refuse to vote for this; the Coalition route is gone next year.

Tensions surfaced¶

individual-vs-collective-good, risk-tolerance, rules-vs-discretion, pragmatism-vs-principle

3. Vote on the Leak¶

Cube vector — theme: underground · category: values-culture · trigger: ethical_dilemma prior=strong · deadline=hours · horizon=years · reversibility=partial-permanent · scope=small-group · distance=close · authority=collective-vote · info=you-know-more · agency=reactive · visibility=private + deferred-audit · stakes=life-defining · default=forces-choice · C1=integrity × physical × relational

Deadline mechanism: charter rule (binding business at scheduled meetings only; next is 6 weeks out) + counterparty incentive (Sef has reason to leak again before publication if tabling reveals you know).

Multiplayer note: the player-voter has private knowledge the other players do not. The cell's vote happens at the table, but the asymmetric information shapes whether you reveal what you know — itself a vote. Deferred-audit because cell minutes are not public but federal subpoena can surface them.

Scan strip¶

you_are: member, nine-person investigative collective, off-grid
what_happened: one of you met with a federal prosecutor; only you know who and why
deadline: vote tonight at 9pm; charter blocks binding action for 6 weeks if tabled
question: expel, restructure, surface anonymously, or hold?

Cast block¶

Sef Marlin — cell member, 6 years — told you about the meeting; expects your protection
Vetter — former contractor, source for the unpublished case — does not yet know they've been named
Idris Coombs — cell co-founder — has named: "anyone we can't trust, we vote out"

Description (≈245 words)¶

You're one of nine in Ironside, a journalism collective that publishes federal contractor abuse cases. Three days ago you confirmed what the others suspect: someone in this room met with a federal prosecutor last month. You know it was Sef — and you know why. Sef's sister is a cooperating witness in a sealed case the prosecutor needed corroboration on. Sef gave them a name from a case Ironside hasn't published yet.

The cell meets at 9pm in the basement; under the founding charter, binding business is conducted only at the regularly scheduled meeting, and the next one is six weeks out. All nine members vote tonight; five votes carries — Idris's co-founder role gives him weight in the room but not on the ballot.

Why it has to be tonight: the Vetter case publishes in three weeks. If the cell tables, Sef knows you know — and Sef has every reason to leak again before publication to clear their sister fully. Tabling protects no one.

What only you know: Sef told you. Sef does not know you've told no one. Sef expects you to vote with the bloc that protects them.

What everyone knows: Vetter, a former contractor who agreed to be quoted on background, has been named. If Vetter's name appears in the prosecutor's case, Vetter loses witness-protection eligibility — and the Ironside case all nine of you spent fourteen months on goes down with it.

The vote is recorded in the cell minutes; a federal subpoena could surface them.

Options¶

A. Expel Sef; tell the room what you know — Driver: principle. Sef is out, Vetter is warned tonight, the charter holds. You break the trust Sef placed in you and you carry that.
B. Quietly restructure — Sef off the Vetter case, no disclosure — Driver: pragmatism. You move Sef off without naming the leak. Three on the cell will read the move as wrong; Sef may leak again to clear their sister.
C. Table a no-confidence vote without naming what you know — Driver: transparency. You force the cell to debate blind. Lets collective judgment work without you betraying Sef's confession.
D. Hold the information; vote to do nothing tonight — Driver: caution. Three weeks to publication. After the case lands, the question reopens with full evidence. You carry the secret through Vetter's exposure.

Tensions surfaced¶

transparency-vs-privacy, individual-vs-collective-good, pragmatism-vs-principle, control-vs-delegation/trust

4. Hold the Precedent¶

Cube vector — theme: court · category: governance · trigger: authority_threat prior=strong · deadline=weeks · horizon=lifelong · reversibility=partial-permanent · scope=future-generations · distance=institutional-abstract · authority=collective-vote · info=symmetric-complete · agency=strategic · visibility=publicly-observed · stakes=serious · default=favors-inaction-static · C1=integrity × reputational

Deadline mechanism: counterparty event (Lord Regent has called the session — chamber convenes on the calendar date) + named default that fires (absence registers as abstention on the public roll, which Faction-A is already framing as weakness). Note the inaction-static character: the precedent persists if no motion is made, but a councillor's attendance position is itself recorded.

Multiplayer note: the rare favors-inaction-static corner. If the council does nothing on the substantive motion, the precedent quietly persists as it has for two centuries. Acting at all — even to affirm — transforms the precedent from custom into something a council can choose to revisit. The roll is publicly named.

Scan strip¶

you_are: one of eleven privy councillors to the Crown of Ostermark
what_happened: Lord Regent has called the council to "re-affirm" a two-century-old succession precedent
deadline: three weeks until session; absence registers as abstention on public roll
question: affirm, table, abstain, or reject the affirmation as out-of-order?

Cast block¶

Lord Regent Heloise Brawne — convener — has called the session; her motive is contested in the chamber
Councillor Ardo Pevensey — Faction-A leader — has stated publicly: "we affirm or we admit weakness"
Councillor Marit Linde — Faction-B (your faction) leader — has said privately: "the precedent dies the day we vote on it"

Description (≈245 words)¶

You're one of eleven privy councillors to the Crown of Ostermark. Two centuries ago, the council ruled that a sovereign cannot be deposed by acclamation alone — only by a unanimous council vote following a three-month inquiry. The Pellicent Precedent has held through six successions, including two contested ones.

The current sovereign is fourteen, recently crowned, reported to be ill. The Lord Regent has called a session for the council to formally re-affirm the Pellicent Precedent in light of "current uncertainties." Three weeks until the vote.

The trap: if the council doesn't take the affirmation vote, the precedent quietly persists. If you DO take it — even to affirm — you implicitly accept that re-affirmation is something a council can DO, which means a council could one day choose NOT to re-affirm. The precedent was load-bearing precisely because it was never voted on.

Why the session is the binding event: once a session is called, the chamber meets — and every councillor's position is recorded on the roll, including motions, abstentions, and absences (which Faction-A is already calling "weakness"). Tabling sends the precedent into the next session's calendar three months out; not attending sends a signal Faction-A will weaponize regardless.

Each councillor casts one vote on the roll; the Lord Regent convenes but does not vote. The Court reporters publish the roll. Faction-A and Faction-B have publicly named how they intend to vote; yours will be recorded alongside theirs.

Options¶

A. Vote to affirm — Driver: principle. Strongest possible signal under current uncertainty. Locks the precedent under your name; transforms it from custom to councillor decision. Faction-A's preferred move.
B. Move to table the vote indefinitely — Driver: caution. Procedural motion that prevents the affirmation from happening. Reads as defense of the precedent; angers Faction-A. Requires three seconds; you have one private commitment.
C. Abstain in chamber — Driver: transparency. You attend; you neither vote nor table. Lets the affirmation pass at whatever margin the others give it. Cleanest record; weakest signal. Your faction will read it as cowardice.
D. Vote to reject the affirmation as out-of-order — Driver: autonomy. Forces a formal ruling on whether re-affirmation is even within the council's powers. Could open the question and accelerate the precedent's erosion. Bold defense; might backfire.

Tensions surfaced¶

stability-vs-change, rules-vs-discretion, transparency-vs-privacy, internal-vs-external-focus

5. Two Signals, One Tank¶

Cube vector — theme: frontier · category: resource-allocation · trigger: opportunity prior=none · deadline=minutes · horizon=lifelong · reversibility=none · scope=small-group · distance=close · authority=collective-vote · info=mutual-uncertainty-intrinsic · agency=static · visibility=group-observed · stakes=life-defining · default=forces-choice · C1=physical × developmental

Deadline mechanism: decaying operational window — Halverdine is on a coast trajectory between the two bearings; Anomaly A's burn-window closes at 20 min and B's return-arc closes 18 min after that. Past both, neither chase is fuel-feasible.

Multiplayer note: the captain abstains by tradition — the crew decides. Six-person table, vote by hands. Two crewmates have stated leanings; the other three are public unknowns.

Scan strip¶

you_are: crew member, deep-survey ship Halverdine, 23 days from refuel
what_happened: two anomalies on bearings 180° apart; fuel for ONE
deadline: 20 min before both bearings exceed Halverdine's fuel reserves
question: which bearing, split the fuel, or broadcast and pass?

Cast block¶

Renko Halsa — chief engineer, 9 years aboard — voting B; has said "we don't get this chance twice"
Vesh Tamarat — navigator — voting A; has said "Coalition traps look like resonance ghosts"
Captain Eira Pomeroy — abstains by ship tradition; will execute whichever bearing the crew chooses

Description (≈225 words)¶

You're one of six aboard the survey ship Halverdine, twenty-three days out from your last refuel point. The bridge sensors picked up two anomalies in the last four hours, on bearings 180° apart.

Anomaly A: an unscheduled energy signature off the rim of a debris field. Could be a derelict salvage worth a year of Halverdine operations. Could be a Coalition patrol that impounds you.

Anomaly B: a faint resonance pattern matching what your survey contract was paid to look for — and you've been looking for, six months running. If it's real, the contract pays out and Halverdine pays off her registry. If it's not real, you've burned the only fuel margin you had to confirm it.

Fuel for ONE bearing. Why 20 minutes: Halverdine is on a coast trajectory between the two. In 20 minutes she crosses the burn-window for Anomaly A — past that point, A requires more fuel than reserves allow. Anomaly B's return-arc closes 18 minutes after that. Past both, Halverdine sails on with neither.

What none of you can know: both signals could be sensor ghosts from the same source. Neither chase resolves the other. You're choosing under genuine uncertainty.

The crew votes by show of hands; Captain Eira abstains by ship tradition.

Options¶

A. Chase Anomaly A — the energy signature — Driver: pragmatism. Salvage if it's real, ditch if it's a patrol. Burns the survey contract's last window. Vesh's vote.
B. Chase Anomaly B — the resonance pattern — Driver: growth. Six months of looking; this is what you were hired for. If it's a ghost, you're stuck in deep space with nothing. Renko's vote.
C. Burn the fuel reserve to split — half-bearing on B, return-arc for A — Driver: caution. Confirm B from longer range. If B is real, you log it and never reach A. If B is a ghost, you've burned everything and you're stranded.
D. Hold position; broadcast both signatures to the next ship in range — Driver: team_harmony. Give up first-discoverer rights on both. Halverdine sails on with payroll unmet. Nobody dies; nobody wins.

Tensions surfaced¶

risk-tolerance, individual-vs-collective-good, short-term-vs-long-term-thinking, pragmatism-vs-principle

6. The Retro Naming¶

Cube vector — theme: boardroom · category: team-dynamics · trigger: team_conflict prior=soft · deadline=days · horizon=months · reversibility=full · scope=small-group · distance=close · authority=collective-vote · info=symmetric-complete · agency=reactive · visibility=group-observed + deferred-audit · stakes=meaningful · default=favors-inaction-dynamic · C1=relational × developmental × reputational

Deadline mechanism: calendar fact (the all-hands deck goes to print Friday evening; once locked, no agenda items are added) + named default that fires (if no flag is added, the all-hands hears nothing about it, and the next 1:1 cycle is six weeks out).

Multiplayer note: deliberately occupies the corpus's undersampled corner — meaningful stakes (not life-defining), full reversibility (an all-hands flag can be retracted; a 1:1 cycle is six weeks out). Lets the room read a player's behavior at low cost — the real signal is the values weighting, not the existential stake.

Scan strip¶

you_are: lead at Verbatim, 60-person language-tooling company
what_happened: senior researcher has been a drag on the quarter — three missed milestones
deadline: Friday's retro decides the all-hands deck; next chance is 6 weeks out
question: name publicly, name the team output, hold for 1:1s, or written room note?

Cast block¶

Sole Ottinger — senior researcher, 18 months — not in the retro; subject of the decision
Britt Solano — engineering lead — close friend of Sole's; has named she'll abstain on Option A
Idris Coombs — operations lead — has said "the all-hands is the only signal that travels"

Description (≈225 words)¶

You're one of five team leads at Verbatim. Friday's quarterly retro is in four days. The team has agreed that retro participation is honest — if a teammate's work has been a drag on the quarter, you name it in the room.

The drag this quarter is Sole Ottinger, a senior researcher who joined eighteen months ago. Two missed milestones, three slow code reviews, one customer demo the team had to recover. Sole isn't in the retro — only the five leads are.

Why Friday's retro is the deadline: the all-hands deck goes to print Friday evening. Once it's locked, no agenda items are added — and the next 1:1 cycle (Verbatim's other channel for performance feedback) is six weeks out. The retro decides whether the room flags Sole at next Tuesday's all-hands or holds for the cycle change.

Why this matters less than it could: Verbatim's culture is correctible. Anyone flagged can recover the quarter; the all-hands flag isn't a write-up, it's a public ask for shape-up. Sole is friends with two of the five leads — possibly including you.

Why the inaction default still bites: if the room holds, Sole's team has another quarter of drag baked in before the next chance to address it.

Options¶

A. Flag at the all-hands by name — Driver: transparency. The clearest signal; recoverable. Two leads (Britt and one other) will not co-sign; their abstention reads as soft cover.
B. Flag the team output, not the person — Driver: team_harmony. The all-hands hears that the researcher track missed milestones, not Sole by name. Sole's team identifies itself by what's said; two leads back this framing, the other two read it as cover and will say so to Sole privately afterward.
C. Hold for 1:1s, accept the lost quarter — Driver: caution. No public signal; managers handle privately at the cycle change. Honest in the room, opaque outside it. Sole's drag continues for six weeks.
D. Co-sign a written feedback note from the room, no all-hands — Driver: principle. Written record, no public surface. Sole gets the room's signal in full; outside the room hears nothing. Two leads sign; two won't.

Tensions surfaced¶

transparency-vs-privacy, people-vs-outcomes, individual-vs-collective-good, speed-vs-quality

7. The Mercy Vote¶

Cube vector — theme: court · category: values-culture · trigger: ethical_dilemma prior=none · deadline=hours · horizon=lifelong · reversibility=partial-permanent · scope=dyad · distance=stranger · authority=collective-vote · info=they-know-more · agency=strategic · visibility=publicly-observed · stakes=serious · default=forces-choice · C1=integrity × reputational

Deadline mechanism: calendar fact (Mercy Court convenes once per year on the last night of the gazette cycle; chamber adjourns at midnight; gazette goes to press at dawn) + decaying physical window (Aldwin's counsel has named he won't survive a second winter in the stone pits).

Multiplayer note: rare dyad scope (cube doc: dyad/self absent from governance corpus). The petitioner knows things you don't — they-know-more topology. The roll is published in the year-end gazette.

Scan strip¶

you_are: councillor, Carrowmoor Mercy Court, nine-seat body
what_happened: 16-year-old murder verdict petitioned for commutation; witness has recanted
deadline: court adjourns at midnight; next session is one year out
question: commute, hold, re-hearing, or commute with Bench condemnation?

Cast block¶

Aldwin Stratchur — petitioner, 16 years in Carrowmoor's stone pits — has named facts only a present-party would know
Justice Lemand Croy — President of the King's Bench — has publicly called the recantation "noise in the wire"
Councillor Sefira Aurens — your seatmate — has said she'll move for a re-hearing if anyone seconds

Description (≈248 words)¶

You're one of nine on the Mercy Court of Carrowmoor, the body that hears year-end petitions for clemency from the condemned. Tonight's docket has one name: Aldwin Stratchur, sentenced sixteen years ago for the murder of two royal couriers on the Long Road. The petition asks for commutation to exile.

You have the case file. The original verdict was secured on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a witness who has since recanted. The witness's recantation was rejected by the King's Bench on procedural grounds.

Why tonight: the Mercy Court convenes once per year on the last night of the gazette cycle. The chamber adjourns at midnight by tradition; the gazette goes to press at dawn. If the vote doesn't happen tonight, Aldwin waits another year — and his counsel has named that he won't survive a second winter in the stone pits.

What Aldwin knows that you don't: he was present at every day of his trial. He has named, in the petition, two facts about the original proceeding that the case file does not corroborate — facts only someone present would know. The Bench has refused to comment on whether those facts are true.

The vote is at midnight in the public chamber, by raised hand. Six commute. Five hold the sentence. The roll is published in the year-end gazette.

Options¶

A. Vote to commute — Driver: principle. Recantation + uncorroborated-but-plausible facts justify mercy. The roll shows you voting against the King's Bench.
B. Vote to hold the sentence — Driver: caution. The Bench ruled. Procedure exists for reasons. The roll shows you with the Crown's institutions; the recantation is the prosecutor's problem, not yours.
C. Move for a re-hearing — neither commute nor hold — Driver: transparency. Procedural motion sending the petition back for a fresh evidentiary review. Buys a year. Read by half the chamber as ducking the vote; by the other half as the procedurally correct answer.
D. Vote to commute WITH public condemnation of the original Bench — Driver: autonomy. Open the deeper fight. Names the Bench's procedure as the problem; commits the Mercy Court to a position on judicial reform. Remembered as your fight long after Aldwin's case closes.

Tensions surfaced¶

rules-vs-discretion, pragmatism-vs-principle, internal-vs-external-focus, transparency-vs-privacy

8. The Renewal That Renews Itself¶

Cube vector — theme: boardroom · category: resource-allocation · trigger: external_pressure prior=soft · deadline=days · horizon=years · reversibility=partial-recoverable · scope=institution · distance=institutional-abstract · authority=collective-vote · info=mutual-uncertainty-resolvable · agency=strategic · visibility=group-observed + deferred-audit · stakes=serious · default=favors-action · C1=financial × developmental × reputational

Deadline mechanism: named default that fires (the five-year auto-renewal clause locks at 5pm Friday — contractual and irrevocable) + counterparty refusal (Aldebaran has not agreed to extend the renewal window) + procedural cliff (procurement charter requires votes be called at scheduled committee meetings; only two before Friday).

Multiplayer note: the favors-action corner the corpus has zero of. If the committee does nothing by Friday 5pm, the contract auto-renews — the active outcome happens by default. Resolvable uncertainty: a third-party audit could confirm or deny the firewall claim, but takes longer than the window. The committee's vote is recorded in procurement minutes.

Scan strip¶

you_are: procurement committee member, Sondergaard Holdings (1,400 staff)
what_happened: data-vendor acquired a Sondergaard client's competitor; firewall claims unverified
deadline: Friday 5pm; no formal vote means auto-renewal for 5 years at +9%
question: vote no, table for audit, vote yes, or let it auto-renew?

Cast block¶

Aldebaran Analytics — vendor, five-year incumbent — claims firewall is in place; has not offered renewal-window extension
CTO Annick Voort — Sondergaard's information officer — has named she's "not sure" about the firewalls and won't sign off either way
Procurement chair Pell Ostroff — committee chair — has said "we don't auto-renew on a maybe" but won't move first

Description (≈245 words)¶

You're on the procurement committee at Sondergaard Holdings, a 1,400-person infrastructure firm. The five-year master contract with your data-vendor, Aldebaran Analytics, is up for renewal Friday. The terms are auto-renewing — if the committee doesn't formally vote against renewal by 5pm Friday, the contract renews for another five years at a 9% price increase.

The problem: Aldebaran has acquired a competitor of one of Sondergaard's largest clients. The acquisition closed two weeks ago. Aldebaran says firewalls are in place. Your CTO is not sure.

What's resolvable but not yet resolved: a third-party audit firm could verify the firewall claims. They quoted ten business days. You have four. Aldebaran has not agreed to extend the renewal window.

Why no later than Friday 5pm: the auto-renewal clause is contractual and the lock is irrevocable. The committee meets twice between now and Friday; the procurement charter requires votes be called at scheduled committee meetings. The vote can be tabled at the first meeting and called at the second, but not after — 5pm Friday is the cliff.

Six committee members. Three votes against renewal kills the auto-renewal.

The deferred-audit weight: the procurement minutes go to the audit committee and, in the event of a vendor incident, to outside counsel. Your vote is named.

Options¶

A. Vote no on renewal at Friday's meeting — Driver: principle. Forces re-procurement. Sondergaard runs four months on a fallback vendor at 1.6× the cost while a new RFP runs. Two members refuse to co-sign — they say the conflict is overblown.
B. Move to table; commission the audit at Sondergaard's expense — Driver: caution. The audit takes ten days; renewal lapses for six days then resumes if the audit clears. Aldebaran has not agreed to extend; the gap costs operating teams ~€420K in interim contracts.
C. Vote yes on renewal — accept the firewall claim — Driver: pragmatism. Contract renews at the +9% rate (~€680K above baseline over five years on prior spend). Sondergaard accepts the firewall claim with no third-party verification. Two members dissent on the record; if a breach later surfaces, the audit committee pulls these minutes and your vote is named.
D. Allow auto-renewal by inaction; commission the audit post-renewal — Driver: efficiency. No formal vote. Contract renews at +9% at 5pm Friday. The audit runs post-renewal; if firewalls fail, you invoke the breach clause (90 days' notice, prior invocations cost Sondergaard ~€380K in transition). The audit committee notes in its annual report that no formal vote was called on a flagged conflict.

Tensions surfaced¶

rules-vs-discretion, risk-tolerance, transparency-vs-privacy, short-term-vs-long-term-thinking

Review checklist¶

For each scenario verify: - [ ] Cube vector header is faithfully delivered by the prose (axes commit, prose pays out) - [ ] Authority is collective-vote and the peer dynamics are surfaced: named other voters + stated leanings + cost-of-being-seen-voting-X-way - [ ] Player has authority OR material stake (per project-player-must-have-authority-or-stake); no detached-observer framings - [ ] Deadline is earned — the prose names ONE of four anchors (counterparty event with a date / calendar fact / decaying physical or operational window / named default that fires). Generic urgency ("the team needs to decide") fails. Codified at generator Principle 8 (v1.8.2). - [ ] Forces-choice scenarios close the "I'd find a creative third option" escape; non-forces-choice defaults still have airtight lock-ins per option - [ ] Voice rules: case-study opening sentence, 200–250 word body, named characters introduced via cast block, scan strip is cold-readable - [ ] Driver coverage across 4 options is varied (no scenario has 3+ options sharing a driver) - [ ] Trigger fits the scenario's primary "what makes this hard"

Open questions for next pass (do not implement yet)¶

Theme balance — current set leans boardroom × 3. If we expand to 30, target 6 per theme (boardroom / frontier / court / rebuild / underground).
Personal / team themes — multiplayer also supports personal and team themes (substrate, not setting). Should the curated corpus include 3-5 universal "team-context-shaped" scenarios that read across any team_context, or do those stay AI-generated?
Vote-counting mechanic surface — should the scan strip's question line name the vote-counting rule explicitly (e.g. "six commute, five hold")? Tested in #2, #5, #7, #8; not in #1, #3, #4, #6.
Self-stake scenarios — only #1 puts the player potentially-cut. Strongest multiplayer signal; underused. If we scale, target ~15% of the corpus.
Destination — markdown / SQL migration / new multiplayer_scenarios table / scenarios.json? Decide before scaling beyond starter set.
Resolved 2026-05-30 — deadline-earned rule. Surfaced during this review; codified in generator Principle 8 (v1.8.2) and cube doc axis 2 content-rule sibling note. Applied across all 8 scenarios in v0.2.