CB-WP-0007 T01+T03: window the metric, budget it, cap meta at 25%

Scope cut first, on the maintainer's decision after a spend review: the
project is 38% product / 62% loop-meta, cost per response is 2.9x worse
than its best window, and INTENT stage 0 still lacks a CLI player and
bots. CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost ~$74 — 31% of all spend — for zero
measured efficiency gain. T02 and T04 are cancelled unstarted.

T01: SH-1/SH-2/SH-3 now report over the window since the last commit, and
the cumulative figure is retained but labelled "history, NOT the metric".
The prediction held decisively — window 655,744 mean context against
cumulative 255,307, a 2.6x gap against a 20% refutation threshold. A
cumulative mean over 1,094 responses cannot detect a worsening trend
because the history outvotes the present.

T03: `make shape-budget`, modelled on CB-01/CB-02. Soft thresholds are the
existing SessionShape targets; hard is 1.5x, set before the next
measurement per §Step 4. Deliberately not in `make all` — failing the
build on context would block committing, and committing is what closes the
attribution window and is the natural point to compact, so a gate that
blocks the remedy is a trap. It fires HARD on its first run: 656,574
against a 300,000 ceiling.

InnerLoop v1.5 establishes the soft 25% meta budget. Workplans declare
kind: product|meta|mixed and `make status` reports the share; mixed splits
50/50 and says so. Soft on purpose — a task already started may be
finished, because stopping mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work.
What it forbids is opening new meta work above the line. A pass that
exceeds it must say so in its evidence and name the product work
displaced.

First reading: 68% OVER, of $74.22 attributed. Product reads $0.00 because
the only product workplan, CB-WP-0001, predates qualified task ids and its
bare T## labels collide across passes — stated in the output rather than
papered over.

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

specs/InnerLoop.md

@@ -1,6 +1,31 @@
 # The Inner Loop — Assimilate and Surpass
 
-Status: **v1.4** — corrected from CB-WP-0005 (assertion coverage) on
+Status: **v1.5** — corrected from CB-WP-0007 (session shape) on
+2026-08-01. Change from v1.4: a **soft 25% meta budget** (below), after a
+spend review found the project 38% product / 62% loop-meta with cost per
+response degraded 2.9x from its best window.
+
+> **Meta budget — soft, 25% of spend per pass.** Work on the loop's own
+> instruments and process is capped at a quarter of a pass. Measured by
+> `make status` from each workplan's `kind:` frontmatter
+> (`product` | `meta` | `mixed`).
+>
+> **Soft on purpose.** A task already started may be finished — stopping
+> mid-task to satisfy a ratio wastes the work and leaves the tree in a
+> worse state than either finishing or never starting. What the budget
+> forbids is *opening* new meta work above the line.
+>
+> A pass that exceeds it **says so in its evidence file and names the
+> product work displaced**. That is the whole enforcement: this is a
+> reporting budget, not a gate, for the same reason the session-shape
+> budget is (CB-RES-0005 §4) — it constrains judgment, not artifacts.
+>
+> *(v1.5, from the CB-WP-0007 spend review: CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 cost
+> ~$74, 31% of all spend, for zero measured efficiency gain. Their return
+> was correctness of claims, which is real and is not optimization. The
+> budget exists so that distinction has to be made out loud.)*
+
+v1.4 — corrected from CB-WP-0005 (assertion coverage) on
 2026-07-31. Change from v1.3: where a claim rests on numbers, the
 adversarial reviewer must read the assertion behind each quoted number and
 **mutate it** — re-running the command that prints a number is not