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. How many arms fused this ruling was NOT RECORDED (it predates the boost trail, ran on the path that stored none, or stored one that could not be read), and the ceiling depends on that count (ceiling = arms/(k+1) at k=60): 2 arms top out at 0.03279; 3 arms top out at 0.04918. So a score above 0.03279 here is not an anomaly: it is arithmetic proof a boost arm voted, and the measured band 0.016–0.033 (taken on two-arm asks) is what does not apply. 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 Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	New components and set-up modifications	p.13	0.032266 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#2	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	· 18 new law cards · PARLIAMENT · 1st option 'The game with the new laws' · 2nd option 'The game with variable combinations' · Nobleman tiles	p.11	0.031778 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#3	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	New components and set-up · Sequence of play · Counties · Summary of reward tiles · Special features in the 2-player game · QUEENIE 1: REWARD TILES	p.20	0.031281 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#4	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	Use the rules for 4 players, with following amendments: · Set-up · Each player selects the color of their ally and receives additionally: · Phase 1: Place knights · Phase 2: Parliament	p.7	0.029877 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#5	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	The King's Resentment · New components and set-up modifications · Sequence of play modifications	p.17	0.028446 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#6	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	Object of the game · Common components: · Individual components of the players (in 5 colors): · Give each player...	p.1	0.016129 (inside the measured healthy band 0.016–0.033 (measured on two-arm asks; this ruling's arm count was never recorded))	300
#7	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	Sequence of play modifications · Phase 1: Place knights or the lord · The lord applies for an office · The lord enters the treasury	p.14	0.015873 (below the measured healthy band (< 0.016) — a weak fuse on a two-arm ask, and this ruling's arm count was never recorded)	300
#8	RULEBOOK Lancaster — Rulebook (corpus doc 139)	Sequence of play · Phase 1: Place knights · County	p.2	0.015625 (below the measured healthy band (< 0.016) — a weak fuse on a two-arm ask, and this ruling's arm count was never recorded)	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

generation — timing and the path taken

timing split

retrieval 256 ms · first delta 5558 ms · total 5666 ms (retrieval and first-delta both measured from the START of gateway work, so first-delta INCLUDES retrieval — do not subtract)

full breakdown

queued 0 ms · retrieval 256 ms · ask 5399 ms · gateway work 5666 ms · total 5666 ms

tokens in (the prompt the answerer read)

3566

tokens out (what the answerer generated)

9

tok/sec

138.5 tok/sec — 9 output tokens in 0.065 s of generation

live seat (read from the running child)

answering — gemma4:26b think:false · num_ctx 32768 (live-verified 19s 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

ABSTAINED — Abstained — no grounded answer; closest passages below

abstain rationale

I don't have enough information.

the answerer's own words, verbatim — hostile corpus/LLM text, rendered escaped

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 61), 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.