Initial Commit

experiments/002_conversion_breach/results/bb30ddfc-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Playtest Analysis — Session bb30ddfc
+
+Date: 2026-08-16
+
+Source log: `JSONL/conversion-breach-bb30ddfc-8e4f-4e18-bb7e-22235266d9ed.jsonl`
+
+Prototype revision: 2
+
+## Observed Behavior
+
+- Total logged duration was 1,179 seconds, about 19 minutes 39 seconds.
+- Calm lasted about 2 minutes 55 seconds. The player destroyed 12 constructs, cleared wave 1, and defeated six of the seven constructs in wave 2 before switching.
+- Breach then lasted about 16 minutes 44 seconds. The player reached wave 29, cleared 28 waves, and destroyed 195 constructs.
+- The player made 208 kinetic discharges: 25 in Calm and 183 in Breach. Four Breach discharges affected no target.
+- There were 431 tether sessions: 343 extraction and 88 injection. Injection was more common than in the first session.
+- The pointer transfer buttons themselves were toggled only once in each direction; most injection continued to use Shift.
+- There were 69 forced calibration choices. In Breach these were capacity 33, conversion 24, and transfer 8. This is substantially broader than the first session's conversion-heavy 19/24 distribution.
+- Final Breach values were capacity 1,255, transfer 220.247, and conversion 374.144. All three upgrade dimensions became extreme.
+- 176 of 207 total defeats came from wall impacts: all 12 Calm defeats and 164 of 195 Breach defeats. Construct collisions accounted for most of the remaining non-release defeats.
+- There were 16 unstable releases, all in Breach. Twelve occurred in the middle portion of the run, but they did not displace wall impact as the dominant answer.
+- Breach produced 49 player-damage events but no collapse. Damage remained intermittent into late waves.
+- Later Breach waves often took only roughly 10–25 seconds. From wave 24 onward, conversion climbed from 40.565 to 374.144 within about 70 seconds.
+
+## Player Report
+
+- The player could not say much beyond the first playtest and is ready for a different experiment.
+- A mouse made control easier.
+- Easier input led them to use wider conduit and reservoir upgrades more than before.
+- Eventually the default amount of supplied heat was sufficient to blast everything away.
+- Accidental Shift plus right-click could still open the browser context menu and disrupt play.
+- Clicking interface text outside the canvas selected text. The player considers these browser-medium problems rather than central game problems.
+
+## Interpretation
+
+The mouse had a measurable behavioral effect, so the original input complaint was not noise. Upgrade selection diversified and injection was used more often. However, this did not generate a materially new reported experience or a new strategic layer.
+
+The strongest result is not merely that conversion was overtuned. The activity offered one durable answer—acquire any heat and turn it into wall-directed impulse—and every upgrade increased the throughput or reserve of that same answer. Capacity and transfer therefore broadened the numerical build without broadening the decision structure.
+
+The long session should not be read as equivalent to deep interest. Wave progression, repeated calibration interruptions, rapid power accumulation, and a desire to see the system's limit can all sustain behavior after strategic curiosity has ended. The player's explicit “can't really say much more” and readiness to move on are important counterevidence to duration as a fun proxy.
+
+The matched comparison gives weak evidence that threat pressure increases continuation: Calm received almost three minutes and Breach nearly seventeen. It does not show that pressure creates deeper reasoning or greater enjoyment. Familiarity with Breach, action intensity, wave escalation, or simple challenge could explain the difference.
+
+The coupled heat tradeoff mattered early in Experiment 002, but numerical escalation eventually erased it. Once a small amount of heat created overwhelming impulse, target temperature, remaining fuel, mass, position, and reservoir scarcity stopped constraining the answer. This is direct evidence of strategy crystallization inside a short run.
+
+## Design Consequence
+
+Do not make Experiment 003 by adding enemy types, nerfing conversion, extending waves, or offering more numerical upgrades. Those changes would tune the lifetime of the same dominant answer without testing whether another activity is fun.
+
+The next experiment should remove escalating numerical power and test whether the player enjoys adapting a directly controlled constructed artifact to qualitatively changing physical requirements. This preserves instrumental building and direct agency while replacing repeated extermination waves with different problems that should demand different layouts. It also probes whether construction felt tedious in Experiment 001 because it programmed an autonomous agent, or because construction itself lacked useful leverage.
+