They were failing closed as "squad fitness". Four facts say otherwise: each
family holds exactly 21 rows = 7 types x 3 levels matching the published
"6 single attributes + 1 ALL" list; those six rows are the ONLY ones with
weightrare=2 while all 36 single-attribute rows are 0, and the published list
marks ALL rare; their amounts are exactly 3/6/10 against the documented ALL
card's +3/+6/+10; and bc=6 is one past the six real slots, an "all" sentinel,
with c0=0 reading as "not single-ATTRIBUTE" rather than "not single-target".
The misreading came from consumables.json's FUT_FITNESS_UC/MC label, which is
tool-authored -- build_consumables.py names the 7th element of its attribute
array -- and has no documented provenance. The bc/c0 values beside it ARE
reversed; only the name was not. The genuine squad-fitness card is subtype
220 in fcc_healingcards (10/20/30) and player fitness is 219; that family
stays unsupported.
The two families carry different authored ceilings, 15 single-attribute and
10 all-six, so ceiling_for() reports the right one per effect -- sending the
single-attribute ceiling for an all-six card would let a +15 all-six boost
through, granting 90 attribute points from a card worth 60.
Also corrects ENDPOINT_MAP row 7: ApplyCardByRes carries urlIndex 0x0e, which
resolves to ut/%s/item/resource, and the live verb is POST. The row claimed
PUT ut/%s/item for both apply RPCs, and that conflation is what kept the
"apply must ride PUT ut/%s/item" hypothesis alive until the POST capture
settled it -- every observed PUT ut/%s/item is a pile move.
funman300
3bb6b4fc9d