CB-WP-0019 T03/T04: the cost rule written down, and the lifecycle

T03: InnerLoop v1.7 plus loop-lint's own-cost check. Six passes
under-reported themselves by 30-45%, never once high, and the rule lived
only in evidence files having been re-derived three times. The READING
is load bearing, not the boundary: CB-WP-0018 T04 applied 're-run the
instrument at the moment of quoting' alone and its figure was correct.
So the operative instruction is re-run when you quote, and loop-lint
fails an evidence file naming its own workplan beside a dollar amount
without marking it provisional.

It binds forward from this pass. The check fires on seven historical
files which ARE the evidence for the rule; making them comply would edit
the record to remove the thing it proves -- the same category error as a
live fact: tag on a dated measurement, which this pass also hit.

Lifecycle, at the maintainer's instruction: ready -> active -> done,
where ready means declared and not started. loop-lint fails a workplan
that has started and still says ready, one that is active with
everything closed, and one that is done with an open task. The first
version of that check was WRONG and its own self-test caught it: it
stripped the leading status: assuming frontmatter, which silently
dropped a real task once the frontmatter said ready or active.

Both new checks then fired on this pass's own artifacts and both were
right to.

T04: CB-EV-0017. The new meta budget's first reading is a breach it
caused -- 27% against the 20% line, because this pass cost $31.18
against product passes averaging ~$21. Reported rather than exempted:
ADR-0006 D2 covers the instrument repairs but not the rule-writing, and
the honest reading is that this should have been two passes.

CB-WP-0018 settled at $36.53/95 against $28.08/82 last reported, 30%
higher. Seven for seven.

make all exits 0.

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

gates.toml

@@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ 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)",
+  "CB-WP-0019: two new checks, and both fired on the pass that wrote them. `own-cost` caught CB-EV-0017 quoting its own pass's cost; `lifecycle` caught CB-WP-0019 still saying `active` with every task closed. The lifecycle check's FIRST version was itself wrong and its own self-test found it — it stripped the leading `status:` assuming frontmatter, which silently dropped a real task once the frontmatter said `ready` or `active`",
 ]
 retire_if = "two passes run with no finding while artifacts keep growing — that would mean it is measuring the wrong properties"