Pokémon TCG: 8,400 game records across 7 opponent implementations

I worked with the team (the AI agents I direct) on automated Pokémon TCG experiments at commit aad907a in thisisntjon/poketcg-research, combining a 4-arm matchup experiment (8,000 games), a later 7-opponent panel of 8,400 recorded games (2026-09-03-strike3-rows.csv) with a 256-unit recurrent learner interface (docs/learner-evidence/README.md) and a Git-pinned research reader (FACTORY-IN-ACTION.md).

Method: the matchup experiment modified makthanithin's Apache-2.0 community_1084 Lucario policy and compared 600 baseline games and 600 counter games against each of 7 opponent implementations (METHODS.md). My competition submission used tetsutani's unmodified public Grimmsnarl policy (docs/EVIDENCE-MAP.md).

What was built

Exact results

Bar chart of score change in percentage points across seven opponents: two Alakazam decks gain +20.42 and +18.75; the other five range from -3.08 to +0.67.
8,400 games (600 baseline and 600 counter per opponent; score 1 win, 0.5 draw, 0 loss). Bars show approximate 95% intervals conditional on these implementations and independent games. Open full-size PNG, figure notice.
Seven-opponent panel summary from 2026-09-03-strike3-rows.csv (600 baseline vs 600 Combined counter games per opponent).
Opponent Implementation Games (Baseline / Counter) Mean Score Change (pp) Evaluation Note
Alakazam / llccqq624 600 / 600 +20.42 pp Target matchup (deck also used during development with a different pilot)
Alakazam / raunakdey07 600 / 600 +18.75 pp Second Alakazam implementation
Steel / plamen06 600 / 600 +0.67 pp Non-target opponent
Dragapult / zoli800 600 / 600 +0.50 pp Non-target opponent
Snapshot / aristophanivan 600 / 600 +0.33 pp Non-target opponent
Crustle / harukiharada 600 / 600 -0.75 pp Non-target opponent
Grimmsnarl / grimmsnarl_bc 600 / 600 -3.08 pp Non-target opponent (differs from submitted c61 policy)

October 30, 2026: 5,600-game closed-loop action scorer confirmation & ESS = 48.06 diagnosis

In our local PTCG-Learning-Lab workspace, we trained Ridge regression action scorers on 511 eligible first-search development interventions (512 games total) and evaluated them in closed-loop play across three fresh confirmation studies totaling 5,600 games and 1,002,605 verified action records. All three studies proved that the learned weights changed live search choices (266, 812, and 868 changed choices), and all three failed the pre-registered promotion gate requiring a 95% bootstrap confidence interval strictly above 0.0.

Three closed-loop confirmation studies in PTCG-Learning-Lab (5,600 fresh games, 1,002,605 verified actions).
Study & Model Digest Fresh Games (Actions) Changed Choices Score Delta & 95% CI (pp) Promotion Gate Verdict
tcg-scorer-v1 (88 features, 52462522...) 800 (216,710) 266 +5.625 pp ([-0.003125, +11.125]) FAIL (lower bound -0.003125 pp <= 0)
tcg-scorer-replication-v1 (88 features, 52462522...) 2,400 (391,026) 812 +1.000 pp ([-2.1250, +4.125]) FAIL (interval includes 0)
tcg-relational-v1 (90 features, 389221c9...) 2,400 (394,869) 868 (99 vs 88-feature) -1.500 pp ([-4.6667, +1.667]) FAIL (interval includes 0)

Verify in one minute

Open workflow/research/2026-09-03-strike3-rows.csv and docs/STRATEGY-WRITEUP.md to inspect the 8,400 game rows and the +20.42 and +18.75 percentage point Alakazam gains, or clone thisisntjon/poketcg-research at commit aad907a:

git clone https://github.com/thisisntjon/poketcg-research
cd poketcg-research
git checkout aad907a5b4f9f20de5f591ec49aa2b7ed9c46ea2

Scope of these checks

File details on this page

Format, size and a short SHA-256 identifier, measured when this page was built.