CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
# The gate registry (ADR-0006 D3, CB-WP-0009 T02).
#
# A gate without an expiry is a permanent tax justified once. Every
# standing control mechanism gets an entry here saying what it checks,
# what it has actually **caught**, when its keep-or-kill argument is due,
# and what would retire it.
#
# `make gate-review` reports what is overdue and what has caught nothing.
# It reports; it does not fail the build — CB-RES-0005 §4: a gate that
# blocks the remedy when the metric breaches is a trap, not a gate.
#
# `caught` is the load-bearing field. An empty `caught` is not proof a
# gate is useless — it may be preventing rather than missing — but it
# means the argument has to be made out loud on `review_by`.
# Targets in `make all` that are build or acceptance steps rather than
# *control* gates — they measure the product, not how we work. Listed
# explicitly so a new target has to be classified rather than ignored;
# `loop-lint` fails when a target is in neither list.
not_control_gates = [
"check" , "test" , "sim" , "bench-test" , "size-metrics" , "runtime-metrics" ,
CB-WP-0015: the two inert clauses, AM-7 scaling and AM-8 N=10
Provenance (tier S, one paragraph in lieu of survey and ADR): the two
clauses mutation-check has reported inert since CB-WP-0005. AM-7's
scaling ratio was held up by a test literally named
replay_100k_events_is_linear_and_fast that computed both throughputs,
printed both, and never divided one by the other. AM-8's N=10 was held
up by a runner that does two.
Both are now red. AM-7 3/3, AM-8 2/2, M-D1-MUT 10/14, and ADR-0005's
>=10-of-14 prediction MET for the first time. Neither was closed by
amending the question away, which was the live risk: the denominator is
unchanged and the four unenforced rows are the four already
unenforceable.
AM-7 needed three estimators. Best-of-N per leg then divide (AM-6's,
correct for a floor on one number) gave 0.581-1.085 on an unchanged
binary; legs back-to-back gave medians 0.931-1.004; legs interleaved at
fold granularity give 0.987/0.991/0.989, and 0.989 under 8-way CPU
contention while absolute throughput fell 4x. The INDETERMINATE guard
demanded unanimity and failed a good measurement over one sample
0.001 under the floor; it now requires a two-thirds majority. The
control that matters: AM-6's constant-cost mutation halves throughput
and leaves this ratio at 0.999x green, so AM-7 is not a second AM-6.
AM-8 kept N=10 because the measurement said so. Perturbing the RNG only
from its fourth construction on: --runs 2 PASSES, --runs 10 fails. A
late-onset divergence is deterministic, not flaky, so it is a control
rather than a coin flip. Ten runs live on one scenario (make am8, ~2s)
rather than all 25 (47s a build). GameKernel 5b records it.
The full run also found AM-4a's own mutation stale since ADR-0008 D3
moved the target 250,000 -> 161,000 in CB-WP-0013 -- reported
HARNESS-BROKEN, no score published. The build-free half of that check
is now a --self-test assertion, so make all catches the next one.
mutation-check clauses may now carry their own verify and mutation, and
then the enforced flag is measured rather than declared; a declaration
disagreeing with its measurement is refused.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 14:07:08 +02:00
"am6" , "am7" , "am8" , "replay-test" , "dep-weight" , "self-tests" , "env-test" ,
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
]
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "CB-01/CB-02"
name = "cost budget"
target = "cost-budget"
checks = "spend since the last commit; soft $10, hard $22"
added = "2026-07-30"
review_by = "2026-11-30"
caught = [
"CB-WP-0005: hard breach forced the Phase C re-plan" ,
"CB-WP-0006 T07: $12.06 in one task, the pass's most expensive" ,
]
retire_if = "two consecutive passes never approach the soft line, or commits get small enough that the window is always trivial"
[ [ gate ] ]
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
id = "SH-1/SH-2"
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
name = "session-shape budget"
target = "shape-budget"
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
checks = "mean and p90 context since the last commit (SH-3 retired as a gate, ADR-0008 D1 — still reported as a diagnostic)"
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
added = "2026-08-01"
review_by = "2026-11-30"
caught = [
"first run fired HARD at 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling, which is what prompted the compaction before CB-WP-0008" ,
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
"CB-WP-0013: SH-3 retired from this gate. Its window is *since the last commit*, which during a pass is implementation work, and batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — which is orientation work. Measured: 0 batched turns in 150 in-pass responses across three passes, against 37.5% in the gap between two of them. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target (ADR-0008 D1)" ,
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
]
retire_if = "context stops correlating with cost, or the model's context handling makes the number unactionable"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "M-D1-MUT"
name = "mutation coverage of acceptance rows"
target = "mutation-check"
checks = "each acceptance row's assertion must go red for a stated reason when mutated"
added = "2026-07-31"
review_by = "2026-12-31"
caught = [
"AM-6 measuring contention, not throughput" ,
"AM-5's 61% measurement error under load" ,
"peak RSS over-reported 3x" ,
"K10's first round trip not reproducing" ,
"the bench workload existing twice" ,
"AM-2's expect matching its own passing output (EXPECT-VACUOUS)" ,
CB-WP-0015: the two inert clauses, AM-7 scaling and AM-8 N=10
Provenance (tier S, one paragraph in lieu of survey and ADR): the two
clauses mutation-check has reported inert since CB-WP-0005. AM-7's
scaling ratio was held up by a test literally named
replay_100k_events_is_linear_and_fast that computed both throughputs,
printed both, and never divided one by the other. AM-8's N=10 was held
up by a runner that does two.
Both are now red. AM-7 3/3, AM-8 2/2, M-D1-MUT 10/14, and ADR-0005's
>=10-of-14 prediction MET for the first time. Neither was closed by
amending the question away, which was the live risk: the denominator is
unchanged and the four unenforced rows are the four already
unenforceable.
AM-7 needed three estimators. Best-of-N per leg then divide (AM-6's,
correct for a floor on one number) gave 0.581-1.085 on an unchanged
binary; legs back-to-back gave medians 0.931-1.004; legs interleaved at
fold granularity give 0.987/0.991/0.989, and 0.989 under 8-way CPU
contention while absolute throughput fell 4x. The INDETERMINATE guard
demanded unanimity and failed a good measurement over one sample
0.001 under the floor; it now requires a two-thirds majority. The
control that matters: AM-6's constant-cost mutation halves throughput
and leaves this ratio at 0.999x green, so AM-7 is not a second AM-6.
AM-8 kept N=10 because the measurement said so. Perturbing the RNG only
from its fourth construction on: --runs 2 PASSES, --runs 10 fails. A
late-onset divergence is deterministic, not flaky, so it is a control
rather than a coin flip. Ten runs live on one scenario (make am8, ~2s)
rather than all 25 (47s a build). GameKernel 5b records it.
The full run also found AM-4a's own mutation stale since ADR-0008 D3
moved the target 250,000 -> 161,000 in CB-WP-0013 -- reported
HARNESS-BROKEN, no score published. The build-free half of that check
is now a --self-test assertion, so make all catches the next one.
mutation-check clauses may now carry their own verify and mutation, and
then the enforced flag is measured rather than declared; a declaration
disagreeing with its measurement is refused.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 14:07:08 +02:00
"CB-WP-0015: the two clauses it had reported inert since CB-WP-0005 — AM-7's scaling ratio (a test named `replay_100k_events_is_linear_and_fast` that computed both throughputs, printed both, and never divided one by the other) and AM-8's N=10 (the runner did two). Both now red, 10/14, and the >=10-of-14 prediction met for the first time" ,
"CB-WP-0015: AM-4a's own mutation, stale since ADR-0008 D3 moved the target 250,000 -> 161,000 in CB-WP-0013. Reported HARNESS-BROKEN and refused to publish a score, which is the harness catching itself. The build-free half of that check is now a --self-test assertion, so it runs in `make all` instead of only on a full run" ,
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
]
retire_if = "a full pass adds rows without finding anything, twice running — the harness costs real money per run"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "DFD"
name = "single source of fact"
target = "facts-check"
checks = "every tagged number in the docs matches the tool that measures it"
added = "2026-07-31"
review_by = "2026-12-31"
caught = [
"gr_scenarios stale at 21 after CB-WP-0008 T03 added three scenarios" ,
]
retire_if = "the untagged-literal count reaches zero and stays there, meaning the docs stopped restating measured numbers"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "AM-1b"
name = "kernel spec->code link"
target = "coverage"
checks = "every numbered K-rule is named in the source; binds 2026-08-31"
added = "2026-07-31"
review_by = "2026-08-31"
caught = [
"3 unlinked K-rules at introduction (15/18); 18/18 today" ,
]
retire_if = "it stays at 100% through two passes that add kernel rules — at that point it is measuring a habit, not enforcing one"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "META-25"
name = "meta budget"
target = "status"
checks = "share of the trailing 3 passes spent on the loop itself; soft 25%"
added = "2026-08-01"
review_by = "2026-11-30"
caught = [
"its own cumulative-window defect, reported in CB-EV-0007 §3 and fixed by CB-WP-0009 T01" ,
]
retire_if = "product and meta stop being separable, or the share sits under the line for four passes without anyone consulting it"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "LOOP-LINT"
name = "executable InnerLoop rules"
target = "loop-lint"
checks = "loadability, unmeasured verdicts, tier and chaos declarations, review trails, self-test entry points, and this registry"
added = "2026-07-30"
review_by = "2026-12-31"
caught = [
"four loadability breaches (401, 427, 406, 409 lines), each fixed structurally rather than by raising the limit" ,
"a reporting tool with no --self-test entry point (tools/repo.py)" ,
]
retire_if = "two passes run with no finding while artifacts keep growing — that would mean it is measuring the wrong properties"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "CHAOS"
name = "the chaos roll"
target = ""
checks = "d4 on each tier declaration, 12-declaration calibration window"
added = "2026-07-30"
review_by = "2026-09-30"
2026-08-02 02:48:51 +02:00
caught = [
"CB-WP-0011: first fire in 6 declarations — d4=4 rolled stage 1 from structural L to S; the deleted survey would have opened on 2D toolkits while the existing text renderer was showing 24 of 41 view fields (CB-EV-0009 §1)" ,
CB-WP-0012-T05: evidence — tier L deleted its own deliverable
CB-EV-0010. The pass's own verdict on the tier it ran at.
Full-weight review withdrew the capability port the declaration was made
to build. A tier-S pass has no step 2 and would have shipped it, and
stage 2 would have found it unimplementable — which is what CommitWindow
is already on record in this repo for doing.
Two corrections of the survey's own numbers, compounding:
AM-4a headroom 3,750 claimed -> 92,798 measured (25x)
cheapest windowed 480,501 claimed -> 140,079 measured (3.4x)
headline ratio 128x -> 1.5x (85x)
The prediction from CB-EV-0009 §4 held: meta budget reads 0%, published
in advance and unfalsified.
A correction that is now a pattern: CB-EV-0009 reported CB-WP-0011 at
45 responses / $4.23 / 0.094; final is 71 / $7.02 / 0.099. Still the
cheapest pass, so the conclusion stands. But that is the second
consecutive evidence file to report its own pass's cost low — a pass
cannot measure its own cost, and one quoting its own is quoting a floor.
First priced tier comparison on a single subject: 0.123 $/response at L
against 0.099 at S — 24% more, for a pass that found the two errors
above. On one data point, step 2 is cheap.
Not shipped, and said plainly: the emitted JavaScript has never been
executed. The socket loop is tested end to end with synthetic HTTP and
the page is asserted against as a parsed document, but no browser engine
has run it. INTENT stage 1 therefore stays open even though all four of
its named deliverables now exist.
SH-3 reads 0.0% for a sixth consecutive pass and remains the oldest
unargued number in the project.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 04:30:10 +02:00
"CB-WP-0012: d4=1, no override — and the contrast is the entry. Tier L at full weight deleted its own structural trigger: adversarial review withdrew the capability port the declaration was made to build (ADR-0007 D2), and corrected the survey's headline claim by 85x (128x -> 1.5x, CB-EV-0010 §2). Two passes on one subject at two tiers, priced: 0.123 $/response at L against 0.099 at S (CB-EV-0010 §5)" ,
2026-08-02 02:48:51 +02:00
]
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
retire_if = "the window closes with no overridden tier producing a different outcome than the argued one — the evaluation this window exists to make possible"
[ [ gate ] ]
id = "GATE-REVIEW"
name = "this registry"
target = "gate-review"
checks = "gates past their review date, and gates that have caught nothing"
added = "2026-08-01"
review_by = "2026-12-31"
CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
caught = [
"CB-WP-0013: forced SH-3's re-justification and then its retirement. `make gate-review` had reported SH-3 as a standing breach for seven passes with zero actions taken, which is this registry's own ritual test (ADR-0006 D4); asking what it had ever caught is what exposed that the metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on (ADR-0008 D1)" ,
]
CB-WP-0009-T02: gates.toml and make gate-review
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:42:13 +02:00
retire_if = "it has retired, tightened, or forced the re-justification of nothing by its review date — then it is a ritual, and ADR-0006 D4 says rituals cash out or go"
