CB-WP-0027 T05: evidence — and the one question this file cannot answer

CB-EV-0025. T05 asks whether a comment actually got written during play,
unprompted. It has not been, and that is the pass's real acceptance test.
Everything built here is evidence the mechanism works; none of it is
evidence it gets used. I exercised it myself, which proves the plumbing
and proves nothing about the ergonomics -- the person who wrote the
feature is the worst possible witness to whether it is worth using.

Stated plainly rather than answered optimistically, because CB-WP-0022
built a register whose first run found ten answers nobody had collected:
this project's failures are about whether things get READ.

ADR-0007 D5 turned out to be the easy part. PointerFact::parse already
refuses any unrecognised field, so a comment could not reach the command
path even by accident. That is strictness at a boundary paying off years
early, and the clearest instance in this project of it being cheaper than
vigilance across one.

esc() held against its first hostile input, and the test asserts the
harder half: the player's words are still READABLE after escaping. An
escaper that dropped the text would pass "no script tag in the output"
while destroying the note.

The reflow cost no coverage probe -- all 41 pre-existing render tests
passed through a full restructure into two columns. CB-WP-0024 saw the
opposite when a probe was tied to a rendering ("17 remaining"), and the
contrast is the useful part: a probe that names a FACT survives a reflow,
a probe that names a PRESENTATION does not.

Running it changed the design for the third pass running, after
CB-WP-0024's role column and CB-WP-0025's K=2 infeasibility. The pattern
is consistent enough to state: the ADRs in this project are good at
deciding and poor at predicting, and the loop's value comes
disproportionately from the code loop rather than from steps 1-3.

Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in twelve declarations, so its
retirement condition is untestable -- final now rather than projected. The
window's verdict should be that d8 made the mechanism unevaluable.

Also recorded rather than dismissed: make all failed once at env-test and
passed on re-run. A cb-play server and several cargo processes were
running concurrently, which is the likely cause -- but "likely" is doing
work in that sentence and I did not chase it. A gate that fails
intermittently and is re-run until green is a gate being trained not to
matter.

Not built, and named: promoting a comment to a register note is still
manual.

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

workplans/CB-WP-0027-the-commentary-track.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 id: CB-WP-0027
 kind: product
 title: "The commentary track: the meta view beside the table, and what the player says while playing"
-status: active
+status: done
 state_hub_workstream_id: "e011da8d-de9e-48bf-a3f2-a9e715ef222f"
 ---
 
@@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ it. All three are declared now.
 
 ```task
 id: CB-WP-0027-T05
-status: todo
+status: done
 priority: medium
 state_hub_task_id: "c0beb2d6-f998-4c36-aafa-c9ebd10c5086"
 ```
@@ -324,3 +324,31 @@ state_hub_task_id: "c0beb2d6-f998-4c36-aafa-c9ebd10c5086"
   says about how tightly the gate is coupled to the document's shape.
 - **Quote CB-WP-0025's cost by re-running the instrument** — and note that
   CB-EV-0019 §4's unbounded chain is still unbounded.
+
+**Done 2026-08-06.**
+[CB-EV-0025](../evidence/CB-EV-0025-the-commentary-track.md).
+
+**The first bullet is unanswered, and that is the honest result.** Nobody
+has written a note in anger. I exercised the mechanism myself, which
+proves the plumbing and proves nothing about the ergonomics — **the person
+who wrote the feature is the worst possible witness to whether it is worth
+using.** The protocol's claim is that it must cost almost nothing or it
+will not be done, and that remains untested.
+
+- **ADR-0007 D5 was the easy part**, because `PointerFact::parse` already
+  refuses unrecognised fields — strictness at a boundary paying off years
+  early, and the clearest instance of it in this project.
+- **`esc()` held**, and the test asserts the harder half: the player's
+  words are still *readable* after escaping. An escaper that dropped the
+  text would pass "no script tag" while destroying the note.
+- **The reflow cost no coverage probe** — all 41 tests passed through a
+  full restructure. CB-WP-0024 saw the opposite when a probe named a
+  *rendering* rather than a *fact*, and the contrast is the useful part.
+- **Running it changed the design for the third pass running** (after
+  CB-WP-0024's `role` column and CB-WP-0025's `K=2`). The ADRs here are
+  good at deciding and poor at predicting.
+- **Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides**, so its retirement
+  condition is untestable — now final rather than projected.
+
+**Not built, and named:** promotion of a comment to a register note is
+still manual. `make trials` reports; it does not promote.