You asked
How do I set up the game?
Answered counted as answeredAsked with: Point Saladbg-274960-en-1e
🔧 debug — where this ruling came from
- outcome
- ANSWERED — Answered
- corpus profile
- live
- answerer pin (deploy-frozen, attribution only)
- gemma4:26b think:false 5571076f3d70
- timings
- search 259 ms · ask 3525 ms · total 2154487 ms
- single-flight (PR-5)
- queued 2150694 ms · generation 3793 ms
- retrieval refs (raw) — what the PASSAGE SEARCH returned, not what the answerer read
- [{"page": 4, "score": 0.048652, "snippet": "Based on the number of players, count out or remove the following number of each of the 6 veggie cards from the game (without looking at the point card backs): 2 Players: Count out 6 of each veggie (36 total) 3 Players: Count out 9 of each veggie (54 total) 4 Players: Remove 6 of each veggie (72 tot", "headingPath": "SETUP", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 5, "score": 0.032787, "snippet": "On your turn you draft one or more cards. You may draft either one point card from the top of any of the draw piles or two veggie cards from those available in the market. After you select your card(s), add them to a face-up tableau in front of yourself, then your turn is complete. Optional free act", "headingPath": "GAMEPLAY", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 6, "score": 0.031746, "snippet": "Once you have drafted your card(s), refill the veggie market by drawing cards from corresponding draw piles in each column, filling any empty slots. Flip the cards over from the point side to the veggie side as they enter the market. If one of the draw piles of point cards runs out, split the larges", "headingPath": "TURN END · GAME END · SCORING", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 5, "score": 0.03125, "snippet": "55 GAMEPLAY On your turn you draft one or more cards. Y ou may draft either (1) one point card from the top of any of the draw piles or (2) two veggie cards from those available in the market. After you select your card(s), add them to a face-up tableau in front of yourself, then your turn is comple", "headingPath": "", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 2, "score": 0.030769, "snippet": "Shawn Stankewich, Molly Johnson and Robert Melvin Nicolas Bongiu Dave Lepore Todd Rowland Shawn Stankewich, Molly Johnson and Robert Melvin Dylan Mangini and Flatout Games Todd Rowland, Edward Bolme Nicolas Bongiu, Joseph Chen, John D Clair, Ryan Dancey, Alastair Hulme, Fiona Hulme, Paul Hulme, Chad", "headingPath": "Game Design · Director of Projects · Production · Development Lead · Creative Direction · Graphic Design · …", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 3, "score": 0.030303, "snippet": "Point Salad is a card-drafting and tableau-building game for 2-6 players. Players take turns building a salad of veggies and collecting point cards in order to score the most points for the ingredients in their salad! 108 double-sided veggie/point cards 1 Rulebook Double-sided cards feature 18 each ", "headingPath": "OVERVIEW · COMPONENTS", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 7, "score": 0.029851, "snippet": "77 for each point card, meaning that each veggie card is used to score each point card. Players may score a point card multiple times, and they may also use the same veggie card to score multiple point cards. If two players are tied for a scoring condition on a card (e.g., most onions), then the pla", "headingPath": "", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}, {"page": 7, "score": 0.029412, "snippet": "8 points for each combination of tomato, lettuce, and carrot: 8pts x 2 = 16pts 5 points for each pair of carrots: 5pts x 2 = 10pts 3 points for each carrot, -2 points for each onion: (3pts x 5) + (-2pts x 3) = 9pts 10 points for having the most (or tied for the most) onions of all players: if it is ", "headingPath": "SCORING", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}]
- citations (raw) — what the answer cited, chosen from a retrieval this page cannot show
- [{"page": 4, "quote": null, "headingPath": "SETUP", "sharpsignalDocId": 237}]
- boost provenance — errata + base rulebook (E2/E3)
-
no registered errata card matched this query; base rulebook doc 237 boosted; rulesage.errata.boost-enabled=true, rulesage.errata.supersedence-enabled=true
base rulebook doc 237 boosted
- answered-before recall
-
this ruling was answered, so past rulings were not offered
similarity threshold in force: 0.55 (rulesage.answered-before.similarity-threshold; the exact-question tier is not gated by it)
- debug row retained until
- Nov 6, 2026 14:47
retrieval — what the passage search returned
what this block IS: the PASSAGE SEARCH's own results — the same search that fills this page's closest-passages list — and NOT the passages the answerer read. Answering runs its OWN retrieval: a far wider candidate pool, re-ranked down to a final handful, plus floors this search never applies — the base rulebook, surviving errata corrections, and one slot per book on a multi-book read. Each of those armed only if THIS ask sent what it needs: the boost block names the ids it forwarded, and the scope line names the books it read. A document the answer CITES that no row here names is therefore EXPECTED, not a defect: two searches, two candidate pools, two orders. How much wider that pool was is set gateway-side and is NOT REPORTED for this ruling, and neither are the answerer's final rows — so rulesage has nothing of its own to show beside these.
score = the fused retrieval score (reciprocal-rank fusion over the search arms) — NOT a cosine similarity. This ruling ran the THREE-ARM fuse (full-text + vector + the doc-priority boost arm, which carried the base rulebook and/or the errata corrections this query matched), whose arithmetic ceiling is 0.04918 — all three arms ranking the same chunk #1 (ceiling = arms/(k+1) at k=60). The measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 was measured on TWO-arm asks and does not bound this one: its high end is the two-arm ceiling, and a third arm has room above it. A chunk only one arm ranked highly lands near 0.016 (that one arm's #1 vote), so 0.03 here is an excellent hit, not a 3% match.
per-arm ranks (the rank each search arm gave a chunk): NOT DISCLOSED by the gateway. Fusion happens gateway-side and only the FUSED score crosses the wire, so rulesage cannot show them without a gateway change. The rank column below is the FUSED rank (position in the returned list), which is real.
token count per chunk: NOT DISCLOSED — chunk token counts are not reported on the ask path. The character counts below are of the bounded snippet/quote rulesage actually received — a real measurement of what we hold, never an estimate of the chunk.
| fused rank | document | heading | page | fused RRF score | snippet chars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | SETUP | p.4 | 0.048652 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
| #2 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | GAMEPLAY | p.5 | 0.032787 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
| #3 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | TURN END · GAME END · SCORING | p.6 | 0.031746 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
| #4 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | p.5 | 0.03125 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 | |
| #5 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | Game Design · Director of Projects · Production · Development Lead · Creative Direction · Graphic Design · … | p.2 | 0.030769 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
| #6 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | OVERVIEW · COMPONENTS | p.3 | 0.030303 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
| #7 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | p.7 | 0.029851 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 | |
| #8 | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | SCORING | p.7 | 0.029412 (healthy, below this ruling's 3-arm ceiling 0.04918 (the measured band 0.016–0.033 was taken on two-arm asks and does not bound a 3-arm one)) | 300 |
what the answerer read — the passages it actually had in front of it
what this block IS: the passages the ANSWERING read put in front of the answerer, in the order it read them — the other half of the two reads described above, and the one that decides what the answer could possibly say. Each row names the book it came from and where in that book it sits, what it scored when the search arms were fused, which arm carried it there, and whether the re-ranker chose it or a floor guaranteed it a slot. A row here that no passage-search row names is EXPECTED: a far wider pool, re-ranked, with floors the passage search never applies.
the passages the answerer read: NOT RECORDED for this ruling. Any of three things leaves this empty, and they are all different from the answerer having had nothing to read: this ask may never have reached a gateway at all; a multi-book ask keeps each book's own context on that book's own page rather than here; or the gateway build that answered may simply not report it. What this NEVER means is that the answerer read nothing — an answer was composed from passages either way, and their absence here is a gap in what we were told, not in what it read.
chosen chunks — what the answer actually cited
token count per chunk: NOT DISCLOSED — chunk token counts are not reported on the ask path. The character counts below are of the bounded snippet/quote rulesage actually received — a real measurement of what we hold, never an estimate of the chunk.
| # | document | heading | page | quote chars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [1] | RULEBOOK Point Salad — Rulebook (corpus doc 237) | SETUP | p.4 | no quote on the wire |
generation — timing and the path taken
- timing split
- retrieval 259 ms · first delta 2314 ms · total 2154487 ms (retrieval and first-delta both measured from the START of gateway work, so first-delta INCLUDES retrieval — do not subtract)
- full breakdown
- queued 2150694 ms · retrieval 259 ms · ask 3525 ms · gateway work 3793 ms · total 2154487 ms
- tokens in (the prompt the answerer read)
- 2185
- tokens out (what the answerer generated)
- 199
- tok/sec
- 138.9 tok/sec — 199 output tokens in 1.433 s of generation
- live seat (read from the running child)
- answering — gemma4:26b think:false · num_ctx 32768 (live-verified 17s ago)
- stream path
- streamed — the gateway pushed at least one accumulated draft
- watchdog
- first-token watchdog: 30s per arming window (rulesage.table.first-token-watchdog-seconds), re-armed once by the passages frame — so the worst case before a reader falls back to polling is 60s. Whether it actually fired is a BROWSER-side decision that never reaches the server, so it is not recorded here. The stream path above is the server's half of that story: whether a delta was emitted at all.
- num_ctx · think posture
- both are the CHILD's settings, not rulesage's, and no ask reply carries them — an answer never states which context window or think posture produced it. The live-seat line above reads them from the running child instead, where the gateway can answer for itself; it describes the child NOW, not this ask.
disposition
- outcome
- ANSWERED — Answered
- abstain rationale (n/a — this ruling answered)
- answered — no abstain rationale applies
setup-shape — why the checklist band did or didn't render
- decision
- NO_APPROVED_CHECKLIST — setup-shaped, but no approved setup checklist exists for this game
- pattern that matched
- SETUP — "setup" / "set up"
- matched words (in the normalized question)
-
set up
errata registry — what the gate above had to match against
this game registers NO errata cards (edition 163), so "no registered errata card matched" above could never have matched one
Errata scope: the gate above matched this ruling's own edition only. When an ask also reads an expansion, that expansion's own registered errata cards stay outside the match — a stated phase-1 limitation, not a failed lookup.