ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
---
id: CB-WP-0005
CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25%
Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the
project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse
than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and
bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero
measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted.
T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and
the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric".
The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against
cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A
cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend
because the history outvotes the present.
T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the
existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next
measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the
build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the
attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that
blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574
against a 300,000 ceiling.
InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare
kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits
50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be
finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work.
What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that
exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work
displaced.
First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because
the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its
bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than
papered over.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 14:12:07 +02:00
kind: meta
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
title: "Make the instruments count assertions, then fix what they expose"
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
status: done
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_workstream_id: "0b95a1e3-7780-43d0-81e9-072ef7978734"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
---
# Purpose
`research/CB-RES-0004-replay-and-kernel-coverage.md` (v2, after an
adversarial review that rejected v1 with four blocking findings):
> **Every coverage instrument in this project counts names. None counts
> assertions.** Four of the seven defects found this pass are named in the
> source and inert, so no name-based check finds them.
Two are mutation-proven: AM-7's `hash-identical` clause survives folding a
100k-event log from an unrelated genesis state, and K9's `through` field
survives `Snapshot::take` discarding it entirely. `evidence/CB-EV-0001`
carries ** `AM-7 replay | met, 2,290× ** for the first of those.
[ADR-0005 ](../decisions/ADR-0005-assertion-coverage-and-replay.md ) decides
the response. This workplan executes it in four phases: teach the
instruments to count assertions, correct the record they falsified,
implement what they expose, then measure whether any of it worked.
**Headline numbers are expected to get worse before they get better.** A
pass that widened every denominator and reported the same percentages
would have proved the instruments still count names. Per InnerLoop §Step 4
no target moves in the commit that measures it.
## Phase A — teach the instruments to count assertions
## Task: spec→code link over every numbered spec and every crate
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T01
2026-07-31 16:54:25 +02:00
status: done
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
priority: high
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "d47338c6-eb2e-4443-aad2-0b08c2d91895"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
`tools/rule-coverage.py` hardcodes `AGGREGATE = "games/ground/src/lib.rs"`
and `RULE_RE = \*\*(GR-[A-Z]+\d+)` against `GroundRules.md` alone. The
reviewer's finding: a ~10-line generalization would have surfaced K10, K14
and K18 the day AM-1b shipped.
Deliver: `AGGREGATE` becomes a list of source roots; rule patterns become
per-spec; the link runs over **every numbered spec × .
Three constraints from ADR-0005 §5, all of which must be visible in the
output:
1. The kernel denominator **reports and does not feed the exit code until
2026-08-31**, after which it binds. The date lives in the tool and the
tool prints the days remaining — an open-ended "gate it later" is how
AM-4's targets went unratified for four workplans.
2. **Replicate the zero-rules positive control** on every new denominator.
The existing arm refuses to report over zero rules, a defect it was
fixed for; a kernel regex matching nothing must abort, not print
`0/0 (100%)` .
3. State the limit in the output, as the GR arm already does: this counts
names. It is the cheap half.
**Predicted:** K10, K14, K18 reported unlinked on the first run.
**Refuted if** any numbered rule in any spec is still unnamed in source
after the pass and the tool does not say so.
CB-WP-0005 T01: spec->code link over every numbered spec and every crate
AGGREGATE becomes a list of source roots and rule patterns become
per-spec, so the link runs over every numbered spec x every crate rather
than GroundRules.md x games/ground/src/lib.rs.
The prediction held on the first run:
AM-1b kernel spec->code link: 15/18 (83%) across 10 source files
unlinked: K10 K14 K18
Kernel rules are link-only by design, and the output says so: they are
kernel invariants with no aggregate, setup preset or command vocabulary,
so scenarios/kernel/*.yaml with covers: [K11] would be a tag in a
directory the runner cannot dispatch. Claiming scenario coverage for them
is the inflation this gate exists to prevent.
Per ADR-0005 §5 the kernel arm reports without feeding the exit code
until 2026-08-31, then binds — the date in the tool, not in prose, with
days remaining printed every run, because open-ended "gate it later" is
how AM-4's targets went unratified for four workplans. The self-test
asserts the gate returns 0 before that date and 2 after.
The zero-rules positive control is replicated on the new denominator: a
kernel regex that stops matching aborts rather than printing 0/0 as
though it were 100%.
The self-test passed while the tool was completely broken. A print(
inside say() became say(), so every real `make coverage` died with
RecursionError while --self-test reported all-ok — it only ever called
kernel_arm(quiet=True) and never executed the reporting path. The control
named the behaviour and did not assert it, which is precisely what this
workplan is about. Fixed by exercising the loud path and asserting it
prints, then verified by re-breaking say() and confirming both new checks
go red. Seventh instance of the harness-does-nothing shape, in the tool
written to find that shape.
Also caught by its own gate: a self-test label that printed "0 K-ids"
beside a passing ">5" assertion, because the detail string rebuilt the
pattern with different escaping. A label that contradicts its own check
is worse than no label.
k_rules, k_linked and k_unlinked are registered facts under facts-check.
A limit of that checker is recorded rather than patched: it is
line-based, so a tagged value that prose-wraps fails.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 16:54:07 +02:00
**Delivered, and the prediction held on the first run:**
```text
AM-1b kernel spec->code link: 15/18 (83%) K-rules named across 10 source files
NOTE: link only — K-rules are kernel invariants with no scenario
mechanism; and this counts names, not assertions
gate: reporting only for 31 more day(s), binds 2026-08-31 (ADR-0005 §5)
unlinked (declared in the spec, named nowhere in source):
K10 K14 K18
```
`AGGREGATE` is now a list of source roots, rule patterns are per-spec, and
the link runs over every numbered spec ×
lives in the tool and the days remaining are printed every run. The
kernel figures (`k_rules` , `k_linked` , `k_unlinked` ) are registered facts,
so they are under `make facts-check` from the day they first exist rather
than after they drift.
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
**The self-test passed while the tool was completely broken** — a
`print(` inside `say()` became `say(` , so every real `make coverage` died
with `RecursionError` while `--self-test` reported all-ok, because it only
ever called the quiet path. The control named the behaviour and did not
assert it: this task's own thesis in miniature, and HDN instance #7 . Fixed
by exercising the loud path, verified by re-breaking `say()` .
CB-WP-0005 T01: spec->code link over every numbered spec and every crate
AGGREGATE becomes a list of source roots and rule patterns become
per-spec, so the link runs over every numbered spec x every crate rather
than GroundRules.md x games/ground/src/lib.rs.
The prediction held on the first run:
AM-1b kernel spec->code link: 15/18 (83%) across 10 source files
unlinked: K10 K14 K18
Kernel rules are link-only by design, and the output says so: they are
kernel invariants with no aggregate, setup preset or command vocabulary,
so scenarios/kernel/*.yaml with covers: [K11] would be a tag in a
directory the runner cannot dispatch. Claiming scenario coverage for them
is the inflation this gate exists to prevent.
Per ADR-0005 §5 the kernel arm reports without feeding the exit code
until 2026-08-31, then binds — the date in the tool, not in prose, with
days remaining printed every run, because open-ended "gate it later" is
how AM-4's targets went unratified for four workplans. The self-test
asserts the gate returns 0 before that date and 2 after.
The zero-rules positive control is replicated on the new denominator: a
kernel regex that stops matching aborts rather than printing 0/0 as
though it were 100%.
The self-test passed while the tool was completely broken. A print(
inside say() became say(), so every real `make coverage` died with
RecursionError while --self-test reported all-ok — it only ever called
kernel_arm(quiet=True) and never executed the reporting path. The control
named the behaviour and did not assert it, which is precisely what this
workplan is about. Fixed by exercising the loud path and asserting it
prints, then verified by re-breaking say() and confirming both new checks
go red. Seventh instance of the harness-does-nothing shape, in the tool
written to find that shape.
Also caught by its own gate: a self-test label that printed "0 K-ids"
beside a passing ">5" assertion, because the detail string rebuilt the
pattern with different escaping. A label that contradicts its own check
is worse than no label.
k_rules, k_linked and k_unlinked are registered facts under facts-check.
A limit of that checker is recorded rather than patched: it is
line-based, so a tagged value that prose-wraps fails.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 16:54:07 +02:00
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
**A limit of `facts-check` , recorded not patched:** it is line-based, so a
tagged value that prose-wraps fails. Three edits to place two tags.
CB-WP-0005 T01: spec->code link over every numbered spec and every crate
AGGREGATE becomes a list of source roots and rule patterns become
per-spec, so the link runs over every numbered spec x every crate rather
than GroundRules.md x games/ground/src/lib.rs.
The prediction held on the first run:
AM-1b kernel spec->code link: 15/18 (83%) across 10 source files
unlinked: K10 K14 K18
Kernel rules are link-only by design, and the output says so: they are
kernel invariants with no aggregate, setup preset or command vocabulary,
so scenarios/kernel/*.yaml with covers: [K11] would be a tag in a
directory the runner cannot dispatch. Claiming scenario coverage for them
is the inflation this gate exists to prevent.
Per ADR-0005 §5 the kernel arm reports without feeding the exit code
until 2026-08-31, then binds — the date in the tool, not in prose, with
days remaining printed every run, because open-ended "gate it later" is
how AM-4's targets went unratified for four workplans. The self-test
asserts the gate returns 0 before that date and 2 after.
The zero-rules positive control is replicated on the new denominator: a
kernel regex that stops matching aborts rather than printing 0/0 as
though it were 100%.
The self-test passed while the tool was completely broken. A print(
inside say() became say(), so every real `make coverage` died with
RecursionError while --self-test reported all-ok — it only ever called
kernel_arm(quiet=True) and never executed the reporting path. The control
named the behaviour and did not assert it, which is precisely what this
workplan is about. Fixed by exercising the loud path and asserting it
prints, then verified by re-breaking say() and confirming both new checks
go red. Seventh instance of the harness-does-nothing shape, in the tool
written to find that shape.
Also caught by its own gate: a self-test label that printed "0 K-ids"
beside a passing ">5" assertion, because the detail string rebuilt the
pattern with different escaping. A label that contradicts its own check
is worse than no label.
k_rules, k_linked and k_unlinked are registered facts under facts-check.
A limit of that checker is recorded rather than patched: it is
line-based, so a tagged value that prose-wraps fails.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 16:54:07 +02:00
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
## Task: M-D1-MUT — one mutation per acceptance row
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T02
2026-07-31 17:27:30 +02:00
status: done
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
priority: high
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "c88f2696-ca12-44df-add3-0db3d2819c08"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
The task this workplan exists for. Name-based checks catch 3 of the 7
defects; this catches the other 4.
Deliver `make mutation-check` : for each of the twelve AM-* acceptance
rows, a committed fixture that **inverts the row's stated property** and
an assertion that the suite goes **red** . A row whose mutation leaves the
suite green is a row backed by nothing.
Per ADR-0005 §1, `adapted:mutation-testing` — the denominator is
acceptance rows, not source lines, because the failure mode here is not an
untested branch but a headline number backed by nothing.
**The escape hatch is closed in advance:** a row for which no mutation can
be written is recorded `unmutatable` **with the reason** and **counts
against** the metric. A row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Carries `--self-test` . Its own positive control is the one that matters:
a mutation harness that fails to apply its mutation reports every row as
`unmutatable` and looks thorough — this project has six harness-does-
nothing instances and one of them is being fixed in T03.
**Predicted: 9 of 12 rows turn red.** Deliberately beatable in both
directions — **12 of 12 refutes CB-RES-0004** (the instruments were better
than claimed, the finding shrinks to three absent rules, and M-D1-MUT was
not worth its CI cost); **3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and must
stop and re-plan** rather than proceed to Phase C.
CB-WP-0005 T02: M-D1-MUT — 4 of 14 acceptance rows are enforced
For each acceptance row in GameKernel §5, invert the property and require
the verifying command to go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with the
denominator changed from source lines to acceptance rows.
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
Two corrections to our own numbers. There are 14 rows, not the twelve
ADR-0005 and CB-WP-0005 both asserted — AM-4 splits into a/b/c. And the
prediction of 9-of-12 (75%) becomes >=10 of 14; measured 4 (29%), badly
unmet. No target moved in this commit.
The second correction matters more. My first run reported two SURVIVED
rows and both were my own no-op mutations: `pub struct NullRng;` ->
`pub struct NullRng {}` is semantically identical, and renaming
max_age_days does nothing because CA-17 reads it with a default of 90.
Both would have been published as "this row asserts nothing" — a false
accusation against code that is fine. Replaced with real inversions (a
per-construction counter in the ChaCha seed; reverting AC-9's output
resolution to the first-wins bug it was fixed for), after which both go
red. T08 asks whether writing a weak mutation is the new grep. It is,
demonstrably, on the first attempt.
The finding is larger than the workplan assumed. 8 of 14 rows are
unmutatable — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: nothing in the workspace
compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the headline throughput claim.
The problem is not three unimplemented rules, it is that more than half
the acceptance table has nothing behind it.
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports HARNESS-BROKEN rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports inconclusive
rather than red; the tree is restored in a finally and the restoration is
verified. Not in `make all` — it rebuilds the workspace once per row.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:27:23 +02:00
**Delivered. Measured: 4 of 14 rows enforced. The prediction is badly
unmet.**
```text
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
```
2026-07-31 18:08:28 +02:00
Two corrections, detailed in [CB-EV-0004 ](../evidence/CB-EV-0004-assertion-coverage.md )
Test 2. **There are 14 rows, not 12** — AM-4 splits into a/b/c, so the
9-of-12 prediction is evaluated as ≥10 of 14. And **the first run's two
`SURVIVED` verdicts were my own no-op mutations**, either of which would
have published a false accusation against working code; replaced with real
inversions, after which both go red. T08's question is answered on the
first attempt.
CB-WP-0005 T02: M-D1-MUT — 4 of 14 acceptance rows are enforced
For each acceptance row in GameKernel §5, invert the property and require
the verifying command to go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with the
denominator changed from source lines to acceptance rows.
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
Two corrections to our own numbers. There are 14 rows, not the twelve
ADR-0005 and CB-WP-0005 both asserted — AM-4 splits into a/b/c. And the
prediction of 9-of-12 (75%) becomes >=10 of 14; measured 4 (29%), badly
unmet. No target moved in this commit.
The second correction matters more. My first run reported two SURVIVED
rows and both were my own no-op mutations: `pub struct NullRng;` ->
`pub struct NullRng {}` is semantically identical, and renaming
max_age_days does nothing because CA-17 reads it with a default of 90.
Both would have been published as "this row asserts nothing" — a false
accusation against code that is fine. Replaced with real inversions (a
per-construction counter in the ChaCha seed; reverting AC-9's output
resolution to the first-wins bug it was fixed for), after which both go
red. T08 asks whether writing a weak mutation is the new grep. It is,
demonstrably, on the first attempt.
The finding is larger than the workplan assumed. 8 of 14 rows are
unmutatable — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: nothing in the workspace
compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the headline throughput claim.
The problem is not three unimplemented rules, it is that more than half
the acceptance table has nothing behind it.
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports HARNESS-BROKEN rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports inconclusive
rather than red; the tree is restored in a finally and the restoration is
verified. Not in `make all` — it rebuilds the workspace once per row.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:27:23 +02:00
**The finding is larger than the workplan assumed.** 8 of 14 rows are
2026-07-31 18:08:28 +02:00
`unmutatable` — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: **nothing compares any number to
100,000 events/s**, the headline throughput claim. The problem is not
three unimplemented rules; it is that **more than half the acceptance
table has nothing behind it.**
CB-WP-0005 T02: M-D1-MUT — 4 of 14 acceptance rows are enforced
For each acceptance row in GameKernel §5, invert the property and require
the verifying command to go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with the
denominator changed from source lines to acceptance rows.
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
Two corrections to our own numbers. There are 14 rows, not the twelve
ADR-0005 and CB-WP-0005 both asserted — AM-4 splits into a/b/c. And the
prediction of 9-of-12 (75%) becomes >=10 of 14; measured 4 (29%), badly
unmet. No target moved in this commit.
The second correction matters more. My first run reported two SURVIVED
rows and both were my own no-op mutations: `pub struct NullRng;` ->
`pub struct NullRng {}` is semantically identical, and renaming
max_age_days does nothing because CA-17 reads it with a default of 90.
Both would have been published as "this row asserts nothing" — a false
accusation against code that is fine. Replaced with real inversions (a
per-construction counter in the ChaCha seed; reverting AC-9's output
resolution to the first-wins bug it was fixed for), after which both go
red. T08 asks whether writing a weak mutation is the new grep. It is,
demonstrably, on the first attempt.
The finding is larger than the workplan assumed. 8 of 14 rows are
unmutatable — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: nothing in the workspace
compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the headline throughput claim.
The problem is not three unimplemented rules, it is that more than half
the acceptance table has nothing behind it.
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports HARNESS-BROKEN rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports inconclusive
rather than red; the tree is restored in a finally and the restoration is
verified. Not in `make all` — it rebuilds the workspace once per row.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:27:23 +02:00
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports `HARNESS-BROKEN` rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports `inconclusive` ;
the tree is restored in a `finally` and verified. Not in `make all` — it
rebuilds the workspace once per row.
CB-WP-0005 T02: M-D1-MUT — 4 of 14 acceptance rows are enforced
For each acceptance row in GameKernel §5, invert the property and require
the verifying command to go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with the
denominator changed from source lines to acceptance rows.
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
Two corrections to our own numbers. There are 14 rows, not the twelve
ADR-0005 and CB-WP-0005 both asserted — AM-4 splits into a/b/c. And the
prediction of 9-of-12 (75%) becomes >=10 of 14; measured 4 (29%), badly
unmet. No target moved in this commit.
The second correction matters more. My first run reported two SURVIVED
rows and both were my own no-op mutations: `pub struct NullRng;` ->
`pub struct NullRng {}` is semantically identical, and renaming
max_age_days does nothing because CA-17 reads it with a default of 90.
Both would have been published as "this row asserts nothing" — a false
accusation against code that is fine. Replaced with real inversions (a
per-construction counter in the ChaCha seed; reverting AC-9's output
resolution to the first-wins bug it was fixed for), after which both go
red. T08 asks whether writing a weak mutation is the new grep. It is,
demonstrably, on the first attempt.
The finding is larger than the workplan assumed. 8 of 14 rows are
unmutatable — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: nothing in the workspace
compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the headline throughput claim.
The problem is not three unimplemented rules, it is that more than half
the acceptance table has nothing behind it.
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports HARNESS-BROKEN rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports inconclusive
rather than red; the tree is restored in a finally and the restoration is
verified. Not in `make all` — it rebuilds the workspace once per row.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:27:23 +02:00
**Stop condition: see the note in T07 and the decision recorded there.**
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
## Phase B — correct the record
## Task: correct three committed verdicts and restore the fourth
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T03
2026-07-31 17:54:41 +02:00
status: done
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
priority: high
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "87fa2245-5f27-48af-906e-18affa41efcf"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
Per ADR-0005 §4. Corrections are made **in place with a dated note** , not
silently edited — the correction trail is the artifact.
| row | committed | corrected to |
|---|---|---|
| AM-7 replay | `met, 2,290× | timing clause **met** ; `hash-identical` clause **withdrawn** , mutation-proven unmeasured, and the fold spans multiple game seeds so it is not a replay |
| AM-10 foreign types | `met` | **withdrawn as written** — no `cb-*-api` crate, so the population is empty; re-stated as a K6 determinism row, M-D4-LEAK marked **unmeasured** |
| AM-11 impl pairs | `met, narrow` | **unmet** until a shared conformance suite exists; the pair exists, the suite does not, and the metric is a bool over the suite |
| AM-1b | *absent from the scoreboard* | **added** , at its real value |
The last one is the point of the phase. `make coverage` prints `49/58` two
lines below the `100%` the scoreboard carried, and the scoreboard kept the
flattering half. Update `specs/GameKernel.md` §5 and
`specs/MetricsAndScenarios.md` §1 to match, and tag the new figures under
`make facts-check` so they cannot drift.
CB-WP-0005 T03: correct the record, and defer Phase C
Four verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001 corrected in place with a dated
note, per ADR-0005 §4: AM-7 replay split (timing met, hash-identical
withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as written and restated as AM-10' (the K6
determinism lint it actually measured), AM-11 downgraded to unmet, and
AM-1b added to the scoreboard it was missing from.
The scoreboard gains an Enforced column carrying M-D1-MUT, because a row
can be measured and still enforce nothing and the table had no way to say
so. AM-6 now reads "met, 16.5x" alongside "not enforced — nothing
compares any number to 100,000".
A fifth correction surfaced that ADR-0005 did not list: AM-12 still read
$248.46, the figure CB-WP-0002 disproved and corrected to $93.15 four
workplans ago. It was stale in the evidence file ever since — untagged,
and therefore invisible to facts-check. Now tagged. A duplicated-fact
instance that survived the gate built to catch duplicated facts, because
that gate only checks copies that opted in. Recorded for T07.
GameKernel §5 carries the AM-10 withdrawal and AM-11 downgrade inline so
a reader of the spec cannot reach the old claim.
Phase C is deferred before starting, per the stop condition T02 wrote and
the maintainer's decision. It is scoped to five rules; the measurement
says eight acceptance rows have no instrument at all. Building it as
written would proceed on a diagnosis the instrument had just
contradicted. T04-T06 stay in the file with their analysis intact and
move to CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:54:29 +02:00
**Delivered.** `evidence/CB-EV-0001` §1 now carries a dated correction
note and a new **Enforced** column carrying M-D1-MUT — because a row can
be *measured* and still enforce nothing, and the scoreboard had no way to
say so. §1a records what changed and how each was found.
**A fifth correction surfaced that ADR-0005 did not list:** AM-12 still
read ** $248.46**, the figure CB-WP-0002 disproved and corrected to
$93.15. It had been stale in the evidence file ever since — **untagged,
and therefore invisible to `facts-check` **. It is now tagged
`fact:pinned_total` . A DFD instance that survived the gate built to catch
DFD, because that gate only checks copies that opted in.
`specs/GameKernel.md` §5 carries the AM-10 withdrawal and the AM-11
downgrade inline, so a reader of the spec cannot reach the old claim.
## Phase C — DEFERRED before starting (see T02)
> **Deferred 2026-07-31 by the stop condition in T02, maintainer decision.**
> M-D1-MUT measured **4 of 14** (28.6%) against a 25% floor and a 71%
> prediction. Phase C is scoped to K9/K10/K11/K14/K18 — five rules — but
> the measurement says **8 of 14 acceptance rows have no instrument at
> all**, which Phase C does not address. Building it as written would mean
> proceeding on a diagnosis the instrument had just contradicted.
>
> T04, T05 and T06 stay in this file, unstarted, with their analysis
> intact; they move to **CB-WP-0006**, which is scoped to the finding that
> was actually measured rather than the one that was predicted.
2026-07-31 17:56:55 +02:00
>
> They carry `status: cancel` — the hub's status vocabulary is
> `wait|todo|progress|done|cancel`, and of those `cancel` is the accurate
> one: *these* task records are superseded, and equivalents live in
> CB-WP-0006 T05–
CB-WP-0005 T03: correct the record, and defer Phase C
Four verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001 corrected in place with a dated
note, per ADR-0005 §4: AM-7 replay split (timing met, hash-identical
withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as written and restated as AM-10' (the K6
determinism lint it actually measured), AM-11 downgraded to unmet, and
AM-1b added to the scoreboard it was missing from.
The scoreboard gains an Enforced column carrying M-D1-MUT, because a row
can be measured and still enforce nothing and the table had no way to say
so. AM-6 now reads "met, 16.5x" alongside "not enforced — nothing
compares any number to 100,000".
A fifth correction surfaced that ADR-0005 did not list: AM-12 still read
$248.46, the figure CB-WP-0002 disproved and corrected to $93.15 four
workplans ago. It was stale in the evidence file ever since — untagged,
and therefore invisible to facts-check. Now tagged. A duplicated-fact
instance that survived the gate built to catch duplicated facts, because
that gate only checks copies that opted in. Recorded for T07.
GameKernel §5 carries the AM-10 withdrawal and AM-11 downgrade inline so
a reader of the spec cannot reach the old claim.
Phase C is deferred before starting, per the stop condition T02 wrote and
the maintainer's decision. It is scoped to five rules; the measurement
says eight acceptance rows have no instrument at all. Building it as
written would proceed on a diagnosis the instrument had just
contradicted. T04-T06 stay in the file with their analysis intact and
move to CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:54:29 +02:00
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
## Phase C — implement what the instruments expose (cancelled here)
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
The three tasks below were written in full, then cancelled unstarted. Their
analysis now lives where the work will happen — ** [CB-WP-0006 ](CB-WP-0006-instrument-the-table.md )
Phase B** — rather than here, so there is one copy and it is next to the
code it describes. What each was, and what it became:
## Task: K9 and K11 — durable log, LogStore port, conformance suite
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T04
2026-07-31 17:56:55 +02:00
status: cancel
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "35876b28-97ac-4379-bb71-72e74c4116d4"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
K9's acceptance property is mutation-proven unasserted; K11 has no durable
format; AM-11's conformance suite does not exist. → **CB-WP-0006 T05** .
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
## Task: K10 — the replay bundle and `--replay`
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T05
2026-07-31 17:56:55 +02:00
status: cancel
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "8592b6e7-8b83-4b47-b310-90e16a35eb6a"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
INTENT design decision 8 of 10, unimplemented; four controls required
verbatim from ADR-0005 §6. → **CB-WP-0006 T06** .
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
## Task: K14 and K18 — implement, or amend the spec
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T06
2026-07-31 17:56:55 +02:00
status: cancel
2026-07-31 18:07:30 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "774b1c8a-71c1-4e0a-91b1-0247a3e397cf"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
Fix loadability, and put the deferred analysis where the work is
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 17:58:36 +02:00
`CommitWindow` has zero non-test users; the bench never touches
`ScenarioFile` . Implement, or amend with a recorded argument. →
**CB-WP-0006 T07**.
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
## Phase D — measure it, then say what the loop should change
## Task: control loop — did the numbers get worse, then better?
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T07
2026-07-31 18:06:02 +02:00
status: done
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
priority: high
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "a34baa46-fbfd-473b-9e15-811e17697791"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
Commit `evidence/CB-EV-0004-assertion-coverage.md` . Three tests, all
reported:
1. **Did the denominators widen?** Name coverage before and after, per
spec. A widened denominator that reports the same percentage is the
result to publish — it would mean the instruments still count names.
2. **M-D1-MUT against the 9-of-12 prediction.** Report unmet if unmet; no
target moves in the commit that measures it. State which rows are
`unmutatable` and why.
3. **Did quality hold?** `make all` green with the new gates; and the
honest question this pass raises — did widening the instruments surface
*new* defects, or only the seven already known? Finding none would be
evidence the sweep was as complete as CB-RES-0004 claims, which is a
stronger claim than it sounds and should be stated as such.
Normalize per unit of work, as CB-WP-0004 T05 established: report share of
pass alongside absolute figures, and use `cb-cost --since` to window this
pass against the last.
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
**Measured — [CB-EV-0004 ](../evidence/CB-EV-0004-assertion-coverage.md ).**
70 responses, ** $16.03**.
1. **Denominators widened, and the number moved.** 1 spec → 2, 58 rules →
76, 1 source file → 10, and the new denominator came in at **83%**
naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a widened denominator
reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
2. **M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against ≥10. Unmet** , and wrong about *what* as well
as how much: the diagnosis was three absent kernel rules, the
measurement found eight rows with no instrument at all.
3. **Quality held** , and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects: six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (`rule-coverage` 's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 that
`facts-check` could not see because it was untagged, and **a fifth
error class**.
**The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed, now run:** the two categories whose
tools removed the manual path are at **0 turns** two passes on; the two
that merely offered a better option are now the *entire* mechanical cost
of a pass. Absolute mechanical cost fell $51.76 → $6.13. The mechanism
holds.
**A regression, reported because nothing else would:** SH-3 batching is
**0.0%** (67 tool calls, 67 responses) against a 20% target, and mean
context 315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since
CB-WP-0003 and none of them has ever been enforced.
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
## Task: retrospective and InnerLoop v1.4
```task
id: CB-WP-0005-T08
2026-07-31 18:06:09 +02:00
status: done
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
priority: medium
2026-07-31 14:25:54 +02:00
state_hub_task_id: "3add7e1e-2082-44ef-9287-742c90e5c958"
ADR-0005 + CB-WP-0005: count assertions, not names
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 14:25:26 +02:00
```
One loop change is already earned and should be written whatever else this
pass finds. InnerLoop §Step 2's "numbers" row says the reviewer must
*reproduce the number independently* — satisfiable by re-running the
command that prints it, which is exactly what does **not** find this class.
The reviewer found AM-7 by opening a test out of curiosity, and said so.
> **v1.4:** the reviewer must read the assertion behind every quoted
> acceptance number and **mutate it**, not re-run the command that prints
> it.
This is the **second** instance of a verification step inheriting the
author's blindness — CB-WP-0002's dedup blind spot was the first. Both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution. Record whether
that generalizes.
The question to answer honestly: **CB-WP-0004 concluded that tooling
recovers capacity only where it removes the manual path. Does the same
test predict which gates work?** `env-test` and `task-done` removed the
manual path and held. Does a mutation gate remove the manual path — or is
writing a weak mutation the new `grep` ?
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
**Answered — [260731-assertion-coverage-retrospective.md ](../history/260731-assertion-coverage-retrospective.md ).
Yes, it is the new `grep` , and it is worse, because it fails in the
opposite direction.**
`mutation-check` 's first run produced two `SURVIVED` verdicts and both
were the author's own no-op mutations — two of fourteen rows, first
attempt, in a pass whose subject was inert assertions. Writing a weak
mutation is exactly as easy as writing a strong one and the harness cannot
tell them apart.
**The fifth error class: false accusation (FA).** HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is *more* credible than the truth because it
arrives with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six
passes — and the newest class is one that hardening created.
**What would bind:** each mutation records its expected failure message
and the harness asserts the observed failure matches. A no-op fails that
immediately, because it produces no failure at all. CB-WP-0006 T08 already
requires it; T09 evaluates the stronger form — mutations written by
someone other than the author of the assertion.
**One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06**, stated rather than left implicit:
"a gate only pays if it removes the manual path" is a **predictor of
whether a gate saves money, not a criterion for whether it is worth
having**. `mutation-check` fails that test and still produced the most
valuable findings of the pass. T06 stated it too strongly; this pass is
the counter-example.
2026-07-31 18:06:02 +02:00
**Attribution note.** T07 and T08 shipped in one commit, and CA-08 keys on
the first qualified task id in the subject — so T07's bucket ($3.06 over
13 responses) covers the substantive work of both, and T08's own figure
covers only its close. `make task-done` refused to close T08 at all until
a commit named it, which is the "no estimates" contract working as
designed rather than a defect. The lesson is cheap: **one commit, one
task id**.
CB-WP-0005 T07/T08: control loop, retrospective, InnerLoop v1.4
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 18:05:31 +02:00
**InnerLoop v1.4** adopted: where a claim rests on numbers, the
adversarial reviewer must read the assertion behind each quoted number and
**mutate it**. Re-running the command that prints a number is not
verification of that number. Second verification step to inherit the
author's blindness; both fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial
execution.
