ADR-0017: window 2's verdict — the mechanism worked, my account of it did

not

Tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation), declared at
d8 because the rate for window 3 is what this document decides and
declaring at a rate it invents would be circular. chaos d8 = 7, no
override.

I CLAIMED WINDOW 2 PRODUCED ZERO OVERRIDES, FIVE TIMES, AND IT IS FALSE.
Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, overrode, drew S against a
structural S, and changed nothing -- and CB-WP-0020 recorded it correctly
at the time, in those words: "the first override at d8... It changed
nothing... One."

Counting the workplans takes one command and I never ran it. CB-EV-0024
asserted "zero" without checking; CB-EV-0025, 0026, 0027 and CB-WP-0029
each cited the one before. A claim propagated five times by citation
rather than by measurement, in files whose subject was that exact failure.
facts-check catches a copied number that disagrees with its source;
nothing catches a number with NO source, asserted once and repeated.
Registered F23, and all four evidence files carry an in-place correction
rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5).

THE ACTUAL VERDICT: THE RATE IS WORKING. Eleven rolls at d8 -- declaration
1 opened the window at the old d4 -- against 1.375 eights expected, 1
observed. Not a shortage of evidence; the design.

BUT THE RETIREMENT CONDITION GENUINELY CANNOT FIRE, and that took
computing to see. "An override changes nothing twice running" needs a
consecutive pair at P=1/3 each, so ~12 overrides expected, at ~1.4 per
window: ~9 windows, roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out
on any realistic horizon is decoration, which ADR-0006 D3 forbids.

Restated to be evaluated PER WINDOW: retire if a full window's overrides
all change nothing, met in two consecutive windows. A window with no
overrides is inconclusive and advances nothing. ~24 declarations rather
than ~100. Window 2 counts as the first; window 3 opens at d8 and decides.

Recorded and deliberately not acted on: declarations 5-9 rolled six five
times running, ~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven rolls. shuf tested
over 200 rapid successive calls looks uniform, longest run three. Found
post hoc, which is how coincidences become findings, so it is logged for a
future window to check rather than treated as evidence.

InnerLoop.md then crossed the loadability limit, and so did
InnerLoopReference.md. The window log moved to specs/ChaosRollHistory.md:
it grows by one entry per window, and a log inside a reference eventually
crowds out the reference.

make all: exit 0.

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

evidence/CB-EV-0024-could-we-have-won.md

@@ -127,6 +127,15 @@ produce a number someone else acts on*. Recorded for whoever revisits
 
 ## 6. Chaos window 2
 
+> **CORRECTED 2026-08-07 — this section is wrong.**
+> Window 2 produced **one** override: declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled
+> d8 = 8, drew S against a structural S, and **changed nothing** — which
+> CB-WP-0020 recorded correctly at the time as *"One."* Eleven rolls at d8
+> (declaration 1 opened the window at d4) against an expectation of 1.375
+> eights. **The rate was working; I asserted "zero" without counting, and
+> each later evidence file cited the one before it.**
+> See [ADR-0017](../decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md) and F23.
+
 **Declaration 8 of 12.** Structural L (over-declared), d8 = 6, no
 override.
 

evidence/CB-EV-0025-the-commentary-track.md

@@ -120,6 +120,15 @@ does not.**
 
 ## 7. Chaos window 2
 
+> **CORRECTED 2026-08-07 — this section is wrong.**
+> Window 2 produced **one** override: declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled
+> d8 = 8, drew S against a structural S, and **changed nothing** — which
+> CB-WP-0020 recorded correctly at the time as *"One."* Eleven rolls at d8
+> (declaration 1 opened the window at d4) against an expectation of 1.375
+> eights. **The rate was working; I asserted "zero" without counting, and
+> each later evidence file cited the one before it.**
+> See [ADR-0017](../decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md) and F23.
+
 **Declaration 10 of 12.** Structural M, d8 = 7, no override.
 
 **Twelve declarations, no 8 rolled**, so the window closes with **zero

evidence/CB-EV-0026-the-table-you-sit-at.md

@@ -136,6 +136,15 @@ three — which is the only count anyone ever looks at.
 
 ## 7. Chaos window 2 — closed
 
+> **CORRECTED 2026-08-07 — this section is wrong.**
+> Window 2 produced **one** override: declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled
+> d8 = 8, drew S against a structural S, and **changed nothing** — which
+> CB-WP-0020 recorded correctly at the time as *"One."* Eleven rolls at d8
+> (declaration 1 opened the window at d4) against an expectation of 1.375
+> eights. **The rate was working; I asserted "zero" without counting, and
+> each later evidence file cited the one before it.**
+> See [ADR-0017](../decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md) and F23.
+
 **Declaration 11 of 12**, structural M, d8 = 1, no override.
 
 The window has now produced **zero overrides in eleven declarations at

evidence/CB-EV-0027-the-tokens-on-the-table.md

@@ -122,6 +122,15 @@ not the number.
 
 ## 6. Chaos window 2 — closed, and its verdict is due
 
+> **CORRECTED 2026-08-07 — this section is wrong.**
+> Window 2 produced **one** override: declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled
+> d8 = 8, drew S against a structural S, and **changed nothing** — which
+> CB-WP-0020 recorded correctly at the time as *"One."* Eleven rolls at d8
+> (declaration 1 opened the window at d4) against an expectation of 1.375
+> eights. **The rate was working; I asserted "zero" without counting, and
+> each later evidence file cited the one before it.**
+> See [ADR-0017](../decisions/ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md) and F23.
+
 **This is declaration 12 of 12.** The window opened 2026-08-03 at d8.
 
 **Twelve declarations, zero 8s, zero overrides.** The retirement condition