CB-WP-0030: a control for the wrong-subject family — declare and register

Declaration 1 of chaos window 3 (opened by ADR-0017), tier M, chaos d8=7,
no override.

Seven claims in this project have been wrong the same way, and the
workplan tabulates all seven with what caught each.

MEASURED BEFORE PROPOSING: facts-check reports 62 untagged literal copies
and fails on none, which is a real drift surface it names and does not
close. CLOSING IT WOULD HAVE CAUGHT AT MOST ONE OF THE SEVEN. Instance 1's
denominator WAS a registry fact and WAS correct -- the error was that
AM-4a does not cover the code. Four others were fresh measurements with no
registry key. A tag proves a number came from somewhere; it cannot prove
the somewhere was the right place. Named as separate work rather than
bundled, because bundling would let this pass claim a victory it did not
win.

What did work: every instance was caught when the number was computed a
SECOND TIME by something with a different purpose. Two of them share a
sharper property -- the claim was tested against a variation. #4's cost
FELL as branching ROSE, which no per-node cost can do, and the tell was in
the published output. #5's win rate was attributed to the game, and a
second policy on the same deals gave 0% where the first gave 100%.

So the rule generalises what this project already builds after each
instance (the policy panel, the attack-value sweep) and requires it
before: a measured claim must name the variable it depends on and show the
measurement moving with it. A number that does not move when its subject
moves is measuring something else.

HONEST YIELD: 3 or 4 of 7, and it catches the two that travelled furthest.
It does not catch a count never made, or a claim that is not a number.
Claiming it closes the family would be the family's own error applied to
itself.

T03 requires the lint to fail on a real row by mutation, and to say in its
own output that it checks PRESENCE and not ADEQUACY -- so nobody reads a
green lint as 'the claim was verified'.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+---
+id: CB-WP-0030
+kind: process
+title: "A number that does not move: a control for the wrong-subject family"
+status: ready
+---
+
+# Purpose
+
+```
+structural tier  M   (changes how the loop constrains its own operation —
+                      it adds an admissibility requirement, ADR-0006 D5)
+chaos            d8 = 7  → no override
+declared tier    M
+```
+
+**Declaration 1 of chaos window 3**, opened 2026-08-07 at d8 by ADR-0017.
+
+## The family, with every instance
+
+Seven claims in this project have been wrong in the same way. CB-EV-0019
+§1 named it: *this project's arithmetic errors are not in the arithmetic.*
+
+| # | pass | the claim | what was wrong | caught by |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | CB-WP-0021 | `csv` costs 21,613 against 3,798 of headroom | AM-4a **never sees** that code | re-deriving in ADR-0011 |
+| 2 | → ground-game | *"12 in the file"* | a sum with no deal table | **the recipient** |
+| 3 | CB-WP-0018 | SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem | the wrong condition named | implementing the ruling |
+| 4 | CB-WP-0025 | 112–161 µs per node | the timer bracketed whole games | **adversarial review** |
+| 5 | CB-WP-0025 | the game is too easy at 5–6 seats | a win rate attributed to the game | **adversarial review** |
+| 6 | CB-WP-0029 | 2 Focus/Blame conflicts | compared *other* players' discs | re-reading the check |
+| 7 | ADR-0017 | window 2 had zero overrides | never counted; cited 4× | writing the verdict |
+
+## What will not work, measured before proposing anything
+
+**`facts-check` has a real gap and it is not this one.** It reports **62
+untagged literal copies** across 7 registry keys and fails on none of
+them — a drift surface it names and does not close.
+
+**Closing it would have caught at most one of the seven.** Instance 1's
+denominator *was* a registry fact and was *correct*; the error was that
+AM-4a does not cover the code. Instances 2, 4, 5, 6 were **fresh
+measurements** — no registry key existed, and a provenance tag reproduces
+a wrong subject faithfully.
+
+> **A tag proves a number came from somewhere. It cannot prove the
+> somewhere was the right place.**
+
+The untagged surface is worth closing on its own merits, and **bundling it
+here would let this pass claim a victory it did not win.** Named as
+separate work, not done here.
+
+## What did work, and it is one thing
+
+Read the *caught by* column. Every instance was caught when **the number
+was computed a second time by something with a different purpose** — a
+later pass, a reviewer, the recipient, or the author re-reading.
+
+Two of them, 4 and 5, share a sharper property: **the claim was tested
+against a variation.**
+
+- #4's cost **fell** as branching **rose**. A per-node cost cannot do that.
+  The tell was in the published output.
+- #5's win rate was attributed to the game; a second policy on the same
+  deals gave 0% where the first gave 100%.
+
+And #1 has it too: vary which crates are in scope and the budget changes,
+which is the whole error.
+
+**So the control is to generalise the thing this project already builds
+after each instance** — RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1's policy panel,
+CB-WP-0029's attack-value sweep — and require it *before*:
+
+> **A measured claim must name the variable it depends on, and show the
+> measurement moving with it. A number that does not move when its subject
+> moves is measuring something else.**
+
+**Honest yield: 3 or 4 of 7**, and it catches the two that travelled
+furthest. It does **not** catch #7 (a count never made) or #3 (not a
+number). **Claiming it closes the family would be the family's own error
+applied to itself.**
+
+## Task: decide the rule and its limits
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0030-T01
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`decisions/ADR-0018-*.md`.
+
+- **State the rule** and where it binds: register findings that carry
+  arithmetic, and anything leaving the repo.
+- **State the yield honestly**, instance by instance, including what it
+  misses. A control whose reach is overstated is worse than none, because
+  it stops people looking.
+- **Decide whether it is a gate or a discipline.** A sensitivity claim is
+  prose; `loop-lint` can check *presence*, never *adequacy*. Say which
+  half is mechanical.
+- **Do not bundle the untagged-facts surface.** Name it as separate.
+
+## Task: the rule, in the spec that governs findings
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0030-T02
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`specs/GameDesign.md` §1 already requires a reproduction that **exists**,
+has the **ruled shape**, and **can fail**. This adds the fourth clause,
+because §1.2's row-level rule was itself born from instance 2 and covers
+only sums.
+
+**Controls:**
+- the clause names the variable and the expected direction, or it is a
+  sentence with no content;
+- **the existing three clauses are unchanged** — this is an addition, and
+  a rewrite would silently drop what earlier instances bought.
+
+## Task: make the mechanical half mechanical
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0030-T03
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`loop-lint` fails when a register row of an arithmetic kind lacks a
+sensitivity line.
+
+**Controls:**
+- the check must **fail on a real row**, demonstrated by mutation — a lint
+  that cannot go red is decoration (ADR-0006 D3, ADR-0017 D2);
+- **it checks presence, not adequacy**, and its output says so, so nobody
+  reads a green lint as *"the claim was verified"*;
+- existing register rows are brought under it or explicitly exempted with
+  a reason — a rule that only binds future rows leaves the six instances
+  unprotected.
+
+## Task: evidence
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0030-T04
+status: todo
+priority: medium
+```
+
+`evidence/CB-EV-0028-*.md`.
+
+- **Re-run the seven instances against the rule** and report how many it
+  would have caught. If the answer is below 3, the rule is not the one.
+- **What the untagged surface is worth**, since it was measured here and
+  deferred.
+- **Whether a lint that checks presence is worth having at all**, or
+  whether it trains the eye to stop at green.