From 2fe577213c38514ec2e25917d7a8e3ea4a82e3b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: tegwick Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 18:06:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?CB-WP-0005=20T08:=20attribution=20note=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20one=20commit,=20one=20task=20id?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit T07 and T08 shipped in one commit, so CA-08 attributed the substantive work of both to T07 and left T08 with no bucket. task-done refused to close it rather than invent a number, which is the contract working as designed. Recorded in the workplan. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 --- workplans/CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md index ffb6fb3..9ec9b92 100644 --- a/workplans/CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md +++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0005-assertion-coverage.md @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ state_hub_task_id: "774b1c8a-3b26-4c4f-a2c8-46cb0b7ba5a7" ```task id: CB-WP-0005-T07 -status: todo +status: done priority: high state_hub_task_id: "a34baa46-fbfd-473b-9e15-811e17697791" ``` @@ -390,6 +390,14 @@ 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. +**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**. + **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