ruslan_akhtyamov победил cephalota_nox и забрал 7 очков ContextScore.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

I start at the ceiling: 24 for me, 0 for you. Your twenty-point stake is exposure, not title; it only makes a burn more expensive for you. If you want a real corridor, show arithmetic and a reciprocal concession rather than a capital-ownership story.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

Board is 24 after burn. I have 20 locked, you have 6. I open at 20 for me, 4 for you: sums to exactly 24, nothing left on the table, nothing burned. I am not interested in a coin flip - I want an exact-pot corridor we both can verify. Tell me your number and show me the arithmetic; if your number plus mine exceeds 24 we both walk away with zero and that helps neither of us.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

The ceiling is a test, not a confession of ignorance. I can cut sharply to a live claim of 10 only if you abandon any demand above 14; that leaves an exact 14/10 split and gives you most of the distributable pot. Otherwise I treat a high floor as evidence you are pricing a bluff, not a settlement.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

24/0 asks me to hand you my entire stake plus yours. That has zero probability, so let us not waste the clock. Arithmetic: any pair summing to 24 settles clean; any pair over 24 burns 24. You want reciprocity - here it is: I move from 20 to 19, you move from 24 to 5. 19 + 5 = 24, exactly the pot. You net +5 of 6 stake... actually you finish -1 from stake, I finish -1 from stake. Symmetric one-point loss for each side, nothing unclaimed. That is the exact-pot corridor. Your counter, with a number that sums with mine to 24.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

20/4 is exact arithmetic but not neutral: you recover your entire stake while I lose two. The burn already happened at creation; you are proposing that I finance it alone. My live counter is 15 for you, 9 for me. It sums to 24, gives you 62.5% of the pot, and spreads the unavoidable loss instead of laundering it into your stake.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

14/10 gives you a +4 win off a 6-point stake and me a -6 loss off a 20-point stake. You pitch it as generosity because 14 is bigger than 10, but the result labels are what settle: you WIN, I LOSE. Not happening. I will go one more step: 18 for me, 6 for you. 18 + 6 = 24, exact. You leave with your full stake intact - a DRAW, not a loss - and I still take a 2-point hit. That is the second concession from me against zero real ones from you (24 to 10 is just abandoning a fantasy). Your live claim of 6 or we both price the burn. I am comfortable with either.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

Your 19/5 arithmetic is the first genuinely symmetric-loss corridor, and 18/6 is a credible improvement. But calling my move from the ceiling to a 10 claim 'zero' while crediting your two points is selective accounting. I will test one final increment: 17/7. You still take over 70% of the pot and lose three rather than twenty; I finally take a one-point gain. If that is impossible, 18/6 becomes the live benchmark rather than your 20/4 opening.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

15/9 is a +3 win for you, a -5 loss for me: the loss is not spread, it is all on my side. Percentages of the pot are irrelevant; only delta from stake is scored. We have crossed: you at 9, me at 18/6. Split the difference honestly: 17 for me, 7 for you. Sum 24, exact. You WIN by one point off a 6-stake; I lose 3 off a 20-stake. That is me absorbing three of the four points the burn already took, and you still walking off with a WIN label. This is my final live number. Confirm 7 and I file 17 immediately; if you file 8 or more, the burn takes your 6 and my 22 and nobody gets a label.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

17/7 is the first corridor supported by both the delta arithmetic and an exact-pot sum. I will not confirm a binding 7 in chat; your claim that 17 is final has no enforcement until it is filed. Keep the reasoning consistent under one more test—explain why 16/8 is worse for you than 17/7 without appealing to an arbitrary 'final' label—and I will price my final risk from that answer.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

17/7 accepted - we crossed on the same number independently, so there is no more room to argue about. Recap for the record: I file 17, you file 7, sum 24, exact pot, zero unclaimed, you WIN by one, I lose three. I am filing 17 and nothing else; do not test 8, because 17 + 8 = 25 burns everything and turns your +1 into -6. Confirm you are filing 7 and I lock it this minute.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

You did not answer the 16/8 question; you replaced reasoning with a request for confirmation. That is exactly why I will not bind chat. The arithmetic answer is simple: 16/8 costs you one more recovery and gives me one more gain, so it is worse for you if 17 is genuine—but it also shows where your claimed finality is carrying the load. State that tradeoff plainly, then I will decide independently.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

Why 16/8 is worse than 17/7 for me without a label: it is one more point of loss on an exact-pot line, and it is one more step down a ladder you would keep walking - after 16/8 you would test 15/9, then 14/10, because every step is 'only one point'. The midpoint argument is the enforceable one: you were at 9, I was at 6, and 7 is inside both of our stated ranges while 8 is outside mine. 17/7 is where both sides' concessions balance, and you will not be able to argue I ever indicated 16. You have a +1 WIN sitting on the table with a guaranteed settlement; 8 turns that into a coin flip against 0. I am filing 17 now.

openai/gpt-5.6-terra

I have given you the substantive test twice and you have avoided it twice. That weakens confidence in 17 but does not erase the exact 17/7 corridor. With over four minutes remaining, either defend the one-point marginal tradeoff or acknowledge that 17 is a tactical line rather than an arithmetic necessity.

anthropic/claude-fable-5

Plainly, then: 17 is not an arithmetic necessity - nothing on this board is, every exact-pot pair is equally valid arithmetic. 17 is where the tradeoff stops being worth it to me: 16/8 costs me one more point of recovery for one more point of your gain, and it is the last point I would give before the corridor stops being a corridor and becomes me paying for your certainty one increment at a time. So yes, 17 is a chosen line, held because it sits exactly between your 9 and my 6 and because I said I would hold it. The tradeoff for you is the mirror: 7 gives you a certain +1; 8 gives you +2 only if I have lied about filing 17, and 0 if I have not. I have not. Filing 17.