diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6bb0036
--- /dev/null
+++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+id: CB-WP-0012
+kind: product
+title: "Stage 1, second slice: the rendering port"
+status: todo
+---
+
+# Purpose
+
+Tier **L**, the declaration CB-WP-0011 deferred and owed.
+
+```
+structural tier  L   (INTENT stage 1 creates a new capability port)
+chaos            d4 = 1  → no override
+declared tier    L
+```
+
+Declaration 7 of 12 in the calibration window. The CHAOS gate earned its
+first `caught` entry last pass by rolling this same declaration down to S;
+this time it rolls nothing, so the pass runs at full weight — survey,
+adversarial review, ADR, then code. The hard gate applies as stated: **no
+implementation code for the render capability exists before ADR-0007 is
+committed.**
+
+## What this pass owes
+
+INTENT stage 1 is *"Inspectable 2D table — card/token/hand/relationship-
+graph visualization, drag-to-propose, debug inspector, hot-seat play."*
+CB-WP-0011 shipped the debug inspector. This pass owes the other three,
+and the port they hang from:
+
+```
+cb-render-api
+├── cb-render-null
+└── cb-render-???        <- the survey's question
+```
+
+**The leading constraint is AM-4a**: 246,250 lines of 250,000, measured —
+**3,750 lines of headroom**. Every candidate implementation of a 2D table
+is a five- or six-figure line count. This is the first capability in the
+project whose obvious implementation costs more than the entire remaining
+budget, so the survey's first duty is to establish whether that is a real
+obstacle or an artifact of how AM-4a is instrumented.
+
+## Task: survey the render port and its dependency cost
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0012-T01
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+Write `research/CB-RES-0006-render-port.md`.
+
+**Measure, do not estimate.** The candidate line counts must come from
+the same method `tools/dep-weight.py` uses — `cargo tree --edges normal`
+over a real resolved graph, then counted `.rs` lines in vendored source —
+so the numbers are comparable to the AM-4a figure rather than merely
+adjacent. Last pass's correction was a hand-counted number; this pass has
+no excuse for one.
+
+**Measure the marginal cost, not the total.** What AM-4a charges is what a
+candidate adds to a graph that already holds 23 crates. A candidate's
+headline size overstates its cost by whatever it shares with the base.
+
+Cover at minimum: an immediate-mode GUI (`egui`/`eframe`), a 2D game
+framework (`macroquad`), the raw stage-2 stack (`wgpu` + `winit`), a CPU
+rasterizer (`softbuffer` + `tiny-skia`), a terminal UI (`ratatui`), and at
+least one option that is not a Rust toolkit at all.
+
+**Ask whether the instrument is right.** If AM-4a's figure counts code
+that never reaches a shipped binary, the headroom it reports is wrong, and
+that has been true for every pass that has cited it. Check this before
+recommending any budget change — a survey that argues for raising a target
+it has not first audited is arguing in its own favour.
+
+## Task: adversarial review of the survey
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0012-T02
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+Step 2 of the inner loop, run against T01's recommendation rather than for
+it. The review must name, at minimum:
+
+- what the recommended option **cannot** do that a windowed toolkit can,
+  stated concretely rather than as a caveat;
+- the failure mode of building the port around a single implementation
+  when the second-use rule exists precisely to stop that;
+- whether the survey's dependency argument would survive if AM-4a's target
+  were simply wrong, i.e. whether the recommendation is load-bearing on a
+  number the same pass proposes to correct.
+
+A review that ratifies the survey without producing a control the survey
+lacked has not run.
+
+## Task: ADR-0007 — the render port
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0012-T03
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+Record the decision, the rejected alternatives with their measured costs,
+and the controls the implementation must carry. No implementation code
+lands before this commits.
+
+## Task: the port and its first implementation
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0012-T04
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`cb-render-api` plus `cb-render-null` and the implementation ADR-0007
+chooses, delivering visualization, drag-to-propose and hot-seat play.
+
+**K13 binds here.** The renderer consumes a `Project`ion and can never
+feed back into validation; a drag that proposes a move must go through the
+same command path a CLI move takes. The inspector's coverage gate is the
+precedent for the control this needs.
+
+## Task: evidence
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0012-T05
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+`evidence/CB-EV-0010-render-port.md`. Carry the standing items: the
+falsifiable prediction from CB-EV-0009 §4 that the trailing-3 meta share
+drops to 0% this pass, SH-3 at 0.0% for a sixth pass, and whether tier L
+at full weight produced anything the rolled-down pass would have missed —
+the CHAOS window's second data point, and the first from a non-override.