CB-EV-0013: correct the cost table, and the self-quoting rule with it

The rule adopted in CB-EV-0012 -- quote the previous pass's final cost,
never your own -- was applied here for the first time and did not hold.
This file opened quoting CB-WP-0014 at $7.47/34, which is what
make status reported then; by the close it read $8.56/48. A pass's
window runs to the next pass's first commit, so the previous pass is
not final until the pass after it starts. The rule fixed the wrong
boundary. Recorded as owed rather than changed silently.

Also: CB-EV-0009's prediction now has a point on each side. CB-WP-0014
opened above the SH-1 hard line at 0.220 $/response; CB-WP-0015 opened
below it, after a compaction, at 0.111. Both on the predicted side, and
the second is the control the last report said was missing -- but n=2,
different tiers and subjects, and the compaction that supplied the
control is also what makes the passes differ.

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

evidence/CB-EV-0013-the-inert-clauses.md

@@ -4,7 +4,9 @@ CB-WP-0015 T03. Measured 2026-08-02 at `7e9ab22`+. Pass kind `product`,
 tier **S** (chaos d4=2, no override). Declaration 10 of 12.
 
 Per the rule adopted in CB-EV-0012, the cost table quotes **CB-WP-0014's**
-final figure and declines to quote this pass's own. See §5.
+figure and declines to quote this pass's own — and §5 records that the
+rule, applied here for the first time, **did not hold**: the number moved
+15% between the start of this pass and its end.
 
 ---
 
@@ -164,19 +166,46 @@ what they always were.
 | pass | kind | responses | cost | $/response |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | CB-WP-0013 | meta | 47 | $8.26 | 0.176 |
-| **CB-WP-0014** (final) | product | 34 | **$7.47** | **0.220** |
+| **CB-WP-0014** | product | 48 | **$8.56** | **0.178** |
 | CB-WP-0015 | product | *provisional — not quoted, per CB-EV-0012 §5* | | |
 
-**CB-EV-0009's standing prediction came due and is consistent — once.** It
-predicted that a pass opening above the SH-1 hard line would cost more than
-0.123 $/response. CB-WP-0014 opened above the line and cost **0.220**.
+### The self-quoting rule is not enough, and this pass is the proof
 
-That is one point past a threshold, and it is worth being explicit about
-what it is not: there is **no control**. No pass has opened *below* the
-line since the prediction was made, the two passes either side differ in
-tier, kind and subject, and 0.220 is inside the range product passes have
-shown anyway. The prediction is unfalsified, not confirmed. It needs a
-pass that opens below the line to mean anything.
+CB-EV-0012 adopted the rule that an evidence file quotes the **previous**
+pass's final cost and never its own, because four passes running had
+under-reported themselves mid-flight. This file opened by quoting
+CB-WP-0014 at **$7.47 / 34 responses**, which is what `make status` said
+at the time. By the time this pass closed, the same tool reported
+CB-WP-0014 at **$8.56 / 48** — the figure moved by 15% *after* it was
+supposed to be final.
+
+The cause is mechanical: a pass's window runs to the next pass's first
+commit, so CB-WP-0014's window was still open until CB-WP-0015 declared.
+**"The previous pass's final cost" is not final until the pass after it
+starts** — the rule fixed the wrong boundary. Quoting from two passes back
+would be safe; that is a change to the rule, and it is recorded here as
+owed rather than made silently.
+
+### CB-EV-0009's prediction now has a point on each side
+
+It predicted a pass opening above the SH-1 hard line would cost more than
+**0.123 $/response**. For three passes it was untestable because every one
+opened below the line.
+
+| pass | SH-1 at open | $/response |
+|---|---|---|
+| CB-WP-0014 | above the 300,000 hard line (347,720) | **0.220** |
+| CB-WP-0015 | below it (237,533, after a compaction) | **0.111** |
+
+Both fall on the predicted side, and the second is the **control the last
+report said was missing**. That is a real strengthening — but it is n=2,
+the two passes differ in tier, kind and subject, and the compaction that
+supplied the control is also the thing that makes the passes different.
+Consistent with the prediction; not yet a demonstration of it.
+
+**Meta budget: 26% `[OVER]`** the soft 25%, on CB-WP-0013's $8.26 sitting
+in a trailing three with two product passes. No product work was displaced
+and ADR-0006 D2 exempts instrument repair anyway.
 
 ## 6. Open
 
@@ -198,4 +227,6 @@ pass that opens below the line to mean anything.
   been reproduced or instrumented.** Recorded because an intermittent
   positive control is worth more attention than a failing one, and because
   a flake in the tool that prices every pass would be quietly corrosive.
+- **The self-quoting rule fixed the wrong boundary.** §5. Quoting two
+  passes back would be safe; the change is owed, not made here.
 - **Chaos: 10 of 12 declarations, 1 override.**