A production club displayed "Quick sell for 0 coins" for contract cards that
Core would have paid 3/13/32 for. The consumables stack wrapper hard-coded
discardValue (atom 0xd7) to 0.
The old rationale was that the client prices the card itself, the way it does
when we omit discardValue from an item. That is true of the ITEM record and not
of the STACK, and the evidence separates them cleanly:
* item+0x38 non-zero makes the client SKIP its local computation and show our
number -- re-proven on the live production client, 16/16 resident cards
"SERVER-SHOWN (local calc skipped)", including the acceptance card
235066 -> 40.
* We send no discardValue inside a consumable's item, so +0x38 is 0 and the
local computation DOES run and fills +0x3c correctly -- Milestone 1 measured
3/3/32/38 there, matching this table.
* The screen still showed 0. So the screen is not reading the item's computed
+0x3c; it reads the stack's atom 0xd7, which we were sending as 0.
So the number belongs on the stack, and it is the SAME
discard::value_for_definition that computes the payout -- one source, so the
screen and the wallet cannot disagree. Per CARD, not per stack: FUT prices a
card and the stack is only a quantity badge over identical copies. An
unpriceable definition stays 0 rather than inventing a number.
Verified on staging across every populated family, 16/16 stacks shown ==
recovered, none zero:
contracts 32/3/13 · healing 32/3 · training 3/13/34 · playstyle 38/38/38
· position 36/38/38/38/38
Two tests lock it: the payout equality (with the exact 3/13/32 the production
club would have been shortchanged on) and per-card-not-per-stack pricing for a
collapsed count=3 stack.
No payout logic changed, no taxonomy change, no ownership change, no Python.
250 adapter tests, 122 host, clippy -D warnings clean, fmt clean.
funman300
ba19954ffb