Three fixes to how a round behaves, found by reading one real round on the live
instance rather than by testing it.
A member asked "what would you have done differently" answered the person's
original question again instead of critiquing what was already there. Fine on a
question with one answer; on a request to *make* something it is an invitation.
`crowd.turn` now says to respond to what is above and not to re-answer.
The model that opened the round, told to write the final answer and take what
the others got right, abandoned its own good answer and adopted the newcomer's
position with no argument anywhere for why. Both closing fragments now say that
an answer is not the worse one for having been written first, and that agreement
with no argument behind it is not a reason to change.
That second one is not cosmetic: all three answers from the observed round were
compiled. The original and the critic's alternative both build; the merged
answer that was actually delivered does not. A crowd's failure mode is not
looping -- the caps handle that -- it is converging on the last thing said.
Third, the reply that opens a round now carries a chip like every other one. It
is the single contribution the crowd does not start, so there was nothing to
stamp it with until the round began, and a two-model round rendered as an
unmarked reply followed by one saying "2 of 2". The stamp is display state and
never scheduling state: `crowd.scheduling_state` hides it from everything that
decides what happens next, because fed to the scheduler it would inherit the
round's clock -- regenerating the opening an hour later would end the round with
"out of time" before anybody spoke -- and would hand that reply a member's tools
and a member's instruction.
And the chip was never translated. It is now, with the count as placeholders
rather than three t() calls around one sentence.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
HomerandClaude Opus 5
8503c6c775