CB-WP-0022-T01: survey — how rule systems record the ambiguity they find

CB-RES-0007 plus a runnable baseline harness. Tier L invokes the
runnable-baseline option; the external candidates are practices rather
than software, so their rows are directional and cap at parity, and the
row that CAN be run is our own.

Measured: 6 findings across 11 files with no index, 2 of 6 (33%) with a
runnable reproduction, U1-U10 raised 2026-07-30 and first READ
2026-08-03 -- 4 days, 0 of 10 ruled.

The uncomfortable number is stated before the review can find it: the
proposed 'no finding without its reproduction' rule would reject four of
our six existing findings. The survey answers rather than routes around
it -- none of the four is expensive to reproduce, so 33% is evidence
nobody was ever asked for one.

Magic corrected an assumption this pass was about to build on. Rulings
are NOT authoritative -- they are 'reminder information with no actual
weight or rules meaning' -- and the authoritative fix folds into the
Oracle card text. So a finding closes when the SOURCE changes, not when
an annotation is added, and the register must be a queue that empties
rather than an archive that grows. That is now a constraint on the ADR's
lifecycle.

Model checkers supply the reproduction rule independently: a
counterexample trace IS the finding. W3C's implementation-defined mark is
the machinery we already have in provisional: scenarios and must reuse.

The loop-lint gate caught the new tool with no --self-test; it has one,
pinning the 2-of-6 baseline so a later edit cannot move it silently.

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

Makefile

@@ -119,6 +119,7 @@ self-tests:
 	$(PY) $(TOOLS)/size-metrics.py --self-test
 	$(PY) $(TOOLS)/runtime-metrics.py --self-test
 	$(PY) $(TOOLS)/replay-test.py --self-test
+	$(PY) $(TOOLS)/design-baseline.py --self-test
 
 # T01 positive control: prove the environment fix, do not assume it. Runs
 # every tool from a foreign working directory with a PATH that has no