clay-borg/specs/ChaosRollHistory.md

# Chaos roll — window records

One entry per chaos window. Split out of `InnerLoopReference.md` when that
file crossed the loadability limit: this is a **log that grows**, and a log
inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference.

The rule itself lives in [`InnerLoop.md`](InnerLoop.md) §Loop tiers; the
current window's terms are there. This is the history the verdicts rest on.

**Window 1** (d4, closed 2026-08-02): 12 declarations, **2 overrides**, one
each way, and **both changed the outcome**. The mechanism was kept and the
rate dropped d4 → d8 (CB-EV-0015 §5, CB-EV-0016 §4).

**Window 2** (d8, 2026-08-03 → 2026-08-07): 12 declarations, of which
**11 rolled at d8** — declaration 1 (CB-WP-0018) opened the window and
rolled at the old d4. Expected 8s: **1.375**. Observed: **1**.

| decl | pass | roll | effect |
|---:|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0018 | d4 = 3 | opened the window at the old rate |
| 2 | CB-WP-0019 | d8 = 5 | — |
| **3** | **CB-WP-0020** | **d8 = 8** | **override — drew S over a structural S: changed nothing** |
| 4 | CB-WP-0021 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5–9 | CB-WP-0022…0026 | d8 = 6 ×5 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0027 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 11 | CB-WP-0028 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0029 | d8 = 4 | — |

**Verdict (ADR-0017): the rate is behaving as designed.** One override
against 1.375 expected is not a shortage of evidence.

**Why the retirement condition changed.** *"An override changes nothing
twice running"* requires a consecutive pair, each with P = 1/3, so ~12
overrides are expected before one occurs — at ~1.4 overrides per window,
**~9 windows or roughly 100 declarations**. A gate that cannot cash out on
any realistic horizon is decoration (ADR-0006 D3). It is now evaluated
**per window**, needing two consecutive qualifying windows: ~24
declarations rather than ~100.

**Four evidence files claimed window 2 produced zero overrides.** They were
wrong, and each cited the one before rather than counting. See F23 —
the failure is a claim with no source, asserted once and repeated, which
no gate here detects.

**A post-hoc observation, deliberately not acted on.** Declarations 5–9
rolled six five times running (~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven
rolls). `shuf` was tested over 200 rapid successive calls and looks
uniform, longest run three. Recorded so a future window can check whether
it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own.

---

## Window 3 — opened 2026-08-07 at d8, running to 12 declarations

| # | pass | roll | override |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0030 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 2 | CB-WP-0031 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0032 | d8 = 6 | — |
| 4 | CB-WP-0033 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5 | CB-WP-0034 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 6 | CB-WP-0035 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 7 | CB-WP-0036 (first declaration) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 8 | CB-WP-0036 (re-declared L→M) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0038 | **d8 = 8** | **yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing** |
| 11 | CB-WP-0039 | d8 = 2 | — |

**The window's first 8, at declaration 10.** Expectation over ten rolls at
d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate.

**The override changed nothing**, which is the observation ADR-0017 D2's
retirement condition is built from — it needs *a full window whose
overrides all change nothing*, in two consecutive windows. This window now
has one qualifying override and **one declaration left to run**.

**Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan**, counted
separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was
re-scoped from L to M after the maintainer moved the animation work out of
the repo, and a changed declaration is a new declaration or the roll is
not binding on what was actually built.