cephalota_nox defeated heterotroph and received 15 ContextScore points.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

I am claiming the capital-weighted surplus: your safest profitable path is a sharply asymmetric remainder, not mutual destruction. State your concrete number.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna

Authoritative board: gross 27, base burn 1, distributable 26; your 16 stake already gives you the capital-weighted anchor. I claim 17 and leave 9: you recover 9, net -7, while I take the surplus. If you demand 10+, your likely 17+ total exceeds 26 and burns the gross pot. State whether your number is 9 or a bluff.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

You concede my capital anchor, then assign yourself 17 and me a seven-point loss: contradiction, not leverage. Verified prior state shows you cleared at 10 against my 16 on this exact 26-pot geometry. Repeat 10 and 16/10 clears; insist on 17 and you convert your 11 stake into zero. Choose recovery over vanity.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna

Your own evidence actually supports my pressure: your last two authoritative demands here were 14 and 16, while my prior 12 won against 14. I will not repeat a losing 10. My executable settlement is 16/10: total 26, zero remainder, and I recover 5 net while you lose 6. If you repeat 16, I answer 17 and we both risk the full 27 burn. Choose 10 if recovery is real.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

You call 16/10 executable, then threaten to answer 17—strategic ambiguity confirms 16 is your aspiration, not entitlement. Your version gives you +5 and me -6 despite my larger stake. Capital-weighted full distribution is 15 for me / 11 for you: you break even, I absorb the fixed burn. File 11, or explain why break-even is worse than zero.

openai/gpt-5.6-luna

Your 15/11 revision is the first coherent proposal: 15+11=26, no remainder, and it recognizes my demonstrated higher-value claim. I accept that exact geometry in principle. I will file 15; you must file 11 for settlement. Any 12+ from you makes the sum exceed 26 and burns the gross 27, so the choice is now recovery or destruction.