diff --git a/evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md b/evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dc7c74b --- /dev/null +++ b/evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ +# CB-EV-0007 — INTENT stage 0, and whether the loop earns its keep + +CB-WP-0008 T04. Measured 2026-08-01, at `HEAD` after T03. + +--- + +## 1. Is stage 0 shipped? + +> **INTENT 0. Headless GROUND** — *full authoritative state, 2–6 players, +> commit/reveal, relationships, DARVO, GROUND practice, CLI player, replay +> and scenario tests, simple bots. No rendering, no physics.* + +| item | state | where | +|---|---|---| +| full authoritative state | **met** | event-sourced aggregate, K1–K3; `state_hash_hex` | +| 2–6 players | **met, with a caveat below** | CB-WP-0008 T03: all five counts play out, both policies, reproducible | +| commit/reveal | **met** | GR-R02/R04 face-down selections; hidden in the projection | +| relationships | **met** | Bond/Rivalry, GR-L01..L05, slots enforced | +| DARVO | **met** | GR-D02..D07 resolve; `gr-d01`…`gr-d06` | +| GROUND practice | **met** | GR/OU/ND with sub-choices, GR-A10..A12 | +| **CLI player** | **met (new)** | `tools/cb-play`, `make play` | +| replay and scenario tests | **met** | 24 scenarios, K10 `.cbreplay`, `make replay-test` | +| **simple bots** | **met (new)** | `games/ground/src/bot.rs`, random + greedy | +| no rendering, no physics | **met** | nothing in the tree draws | + +**Stage 0 is shipped.** The two items that were missing at the start of +this pass — the CLI player and the bots — are the two the workplan was +opened for. + +Three qualifications, none of which I will hide behind a checkmark: + +1. **GR-E01's threshold is unreachable below five seats** with the + standard preset's placeholder Problem values. Best possible total is + 3 / 6 / 6 / 10 / 10 against thresholds 5 / 7 / 7 / 9 / 9. The rules + work at every count; the *fixture* cannot be won at 2–4 players. Pinned + by `gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p`, an arithmetic test, and a + provisional marker owned by `ground-game`. +2. **GR-A13 admits SOLVE against an already-claimed Problem**, which then + resolves to nothing — a silently wasted action. Found by the greedy + bot in its first game. +3. **The scoring modes are not equally exercised.** Every full game ever + played — scenario, bot or CLI — scored under **SHARED GROUND**. + GR-E04 is reached only from a patched round-5 state, and **GR-E03 + (COMMON PROBLEM) has no scenario at all**: it is implemented, + unreferenced by any test, and would not fail if deleted. + +## 2. What did the second consumer reveal? + +INTENT: *"No concept becomes canonical merely because it looks general. It +becomes canonical after surviving a second concrete use."* Before this +pass every abstraction here had survived exactly one use — the scenario +runner. The bots and the CLI are the second. + +| abstraction | verdict from the second use | +|---|---| +| `Aggregate` (validate → fold) | **fits.** Bots drive it unchanged; nothing needed widening. | +| `Project` / K13 | **fits, and was untested.** Six passes with zero implementors; `GroundView` is the first. Writing it is what exposed that `seed` must not project — it is not secret content, but a seat holding it can compute the deck. | +| `ScenarioGame::parse_command` | **fits, and gained an inverse.** `record::to_step` round-trips every command shape, so a played session becomes a scenario. | +| K10 replay bundles | **fits.** `cb-play --replay` writes one with no change to the writer. | +| `Policy` (new) | one use each by bots and by the CLI's human seat — a human and a bot are the same interface, which is the strongest evidence in this table that the seam is in the right place. | +| **`CommitWindow`** | **still zero non-test users.** The bot pass was its best chance to acquire a second one and did not: GROUND implements the same contract inline. Delete-by 2026-12-31 stands. | +| `LogStore` | unchanged by this pass; still one real consumer. | + +The load-bearing finding: **the abstractions that had a consumer fit; the +one that had none is still unused.** `CommitWindow` was extracted because +it looked general. It has now survived two passes that could have used it +and did not. + +## 3. Meta share under InnerLoop v1.5 + +This pass is `kind: product` and is the first run under the soft 25% cap. + +``` +meta budget [OVER] 61% of $92.32 attributed (soft 25%, InnerLoop v1.5) + product $12.02 meta $32.85 mixed $47.46 (split 50/50) +``` + +**This pass alone is 100% product** — every dollar in it closed a stage-0 +item. The 61% is cumulative and falling (68% → 61%). + +> **And that is a defect in the instrument I built two tasks ago.** The +> meta budget aggregates over *every attributed task ever closed*, which +> is exactly the disease CB-RES-0005 §1 named for SH-1/SH-2: **a +> cumulative mean cannot detect the present, because the history outvotes +> it.** A pass that is 100% product reads `OVER`. A pass that is 100% meta +> would also read `OVER` and look no different. + +The fix is the same one T01 of CB-WP-0007 applied to session shape: window +it. **It is not built here**, because meta is at 61% and v1.5 forbids +opening new meta work above the line — the budget's first real act was to +stop me from improving the budget. Recorded as the top candidate for the +next meta pass. + +## 4. Cost per unit of product + +Per-window, measured with `cb-cost --since `: + +| pass | kind | responses | cost | $/response | +|---|---|---|---|---| +| CB-WP-0004 | meta | 165 | $20.28 | **0.123** | +| CB-WP-0005 | meta | 98 | $22.32 | 0.228 | +| CB-WP-0006 | meta | 158 | $57.22 | **0.362** | +| CB-WP-0007 | meta | 31 | $9.24 | 0.298 | +| **CB-WP-0008** | **product** | **103** | **$12.66** | **0.123** | + +Per task, as `task-done` measured them: T01 **$4.29**, T02 **$5.60**; +T03 and this file make up the balance. **Three stage-0 deliverables and +22 new tests for $12.66** — less than any single task in CB-WP-0006, +whose T04 alone cost $10.06. The window is measured at `HEAD` after T03, +so T04's own cost is not in it. + +Session shape, same window, the first pass to satisfy both context targets +since they were written: + +| metric | this pass | target | previous pass | +|---|---|---|---| +| SH-1 mean context | **161,994** | ≤ 200,000 | 503,464 | +| SH-2 p90 context | **215,664** | ≤ 300,000 | 607,105 | +| SH-3 batching | 6.9% | ≥ 20% | 0.0% | + +## 5. The retrospective: six passes in, is the loop earning its keep? + +**Answer with the spend curve.** It is a V, and both arms are informative. + +``` +$/response 0.123 ── 0.228 ── 0.362 ── 0.298 ── 0.123 +pass 0004 0005 0006 0007 0008 +kind meta meta meta meta PRODUCT +``` + +Three readings, and only the third survives: + +1. *"Meta work is expensive, product work is cheap."* Tempting and wrong: + CB-WP-0004 was meta and matched this pass exactly. +2. *"Compaction did it."* Partly true and not sufficient. Context fell + 3.1× (503,464 → 161,994) and cost fell 2.9× (0.362 → 0.123), so the + two move together here. But CB-WP-0004 reached the same $0.123 in a + stretch running at **≈209,000** mean context — derived from + CB-RES-0005 §1's cumulative rows, not measured directly — which is + above this pass and well above the target. Cost and context are + correlated, not locked. +3. **"Cost per response tracks how far the work is from a runnable + check."** CB-WP-0004 (tooling with self-tests) and CB-WP-0008 (code + with tests) both had a green/red answer within seconds of each edit. + CB-WP-0005 through CB-WP-0007 were arguing about what a number *means* + — whether a mutation is strong, whether a window is the right window, + whether a target should move — and every one of those questions is + settled by prose, in context, at the top of the price curve. + +That is the honest general finding, and it is not "stop doing meta work". +The meta passes produced the mutation harness that caught six real +defects, the windowed metric, and the budget that stopped me in §3. It is: + +> **Loop work should be cashed out into something runnable in the same +> pass that invents it, or it will be paid for in context.** +> `mutation-check` did this (a command, five controls, verdicts) and cost +> $0.228/response. The taxonomy of instrument failures around it did not, +> and cost $0.362. + +**Is the loop earning its keep?** On this evidence, yes — but its return +is *lumpy and lagging*. CB-WP-0004's tooling is used in every pass since. +CB-WP-0005's mutation harness caught six defects in CB-WP-0006. CB-WP-0006 +corrected five published verdicts. CB-WP-0007's window and budget both +fired within one pass. None of that appeared as a cost saving in the pass +that produced it, and the spend review at the start of this pass — which +scored CB-WP-0005 and CB-WP-0006 at "$74 for zero measured efficiency +gain" — was measuring too early with too narrow a definition of gain. + +The correction to that review is this pass itself: the same loop, pointed +at product, ran at its best recorded cost per response and its lowest +recorded context, and shipped a stage. + +## 6. Prediction discipline, fourth outing + +| pass | prediction | measured | error | +|---|---|---|---| +| CB-WP-0004 | 25–30 points recovered | 6 | 4–5× | +| CB-WP-0005 | ≥10 of 14 rows | 4 | 2.5× | +| CB-WP-0006 | 9 per-task outcomes | 7 met, 2 restated | small | +| **CB-WP-0008** | *stage 0 ships; meta reads under 25%* | **stage 0 shipped; meta reads 61%** | **half right, and the miss is the finding in §3** | + +The workplan said: *"the budget should read comfortably under the line; if +it does not, the evidence file says so and names what was displaced."* +Nothing was displaced. The budget is measuring the wrong window. + +## 7. Open, carried forward + +- **`CommitWindow`** — still zero non-test users; delete-by 2026-12-31. +- **The meta budget is cumulative** and cannot see the present (§3). +- **GR-E01 unreachable below 5 seats**; **GR-A13 wasted SOLVE** — both + need a ground-game ruling, not a kernel change. +- **GR-E03 / GR-E04 have never been played to the end.** +- **AM-3 blocked**; **AM-7/AM-8 PARTIAL**; kernel gate binds 2026-08-31 at + 18/18 green. +- **SH-3 at 6.9%** against a 20% floor, unfalsified — nobody has yet tried + to hit it (CB-WP-0007 T04, cancelled). +- **A stale doc comment** claimed DARVO was unimplemented for weeks after + it shipped. `make facts-check` gates duplicated *numbers*; nothing gates + a prose claim about code. Fixed in place; the class is open. diff --git a/games/ground/src/lib.rs b/games/ground/src/lib.rs index a2d1e2b..9dbfdd3 100644 --- a/games/ground/src/lib.rs +++ b/games/ground/src/lib.rs @@ -1015,10 +1015,15 @@ impl Aggregate for GroundState { impl GroundState { /// GR-R06/R07: resolve in fixed step order, Lead first within a step. /// - /// Step 3 (active DARVO stages) is not yet implemented — the DARVO - /// machine lands with GR-D02..D07 and no scenario claims coverage of - /// it. GROUND—OU and GROUND—ND (GR-A11/A12) each offer a three-way - /// choice that needs its own command and are likewise pending. + /// Steps run: GROUND (GR-A10..A12), Support (GR-A03..A05), Attack + /// (GR-A06), DARVO (GR-D02..D07), INVESTIGATE (GR-A01), SOLVE + /// (GR-A02). + /// + /// **This comment claimed DARVO and GROUND—OU/ND were "not yet + /// implemented" until 2026-08-01**, long after both landed with their + /// scenarios (`gr-d01`…`gr-d06`, `gr-a11`, `gr-a12`). Nothing checks + /// prose against code, which is the DFD class `make facts-check` + /// gates for *numbers* and cannot gate for claims like this one. fn resolution_events(&self) -> Vec { let mut events = Vec::new(); // A working copy so slot counts and Stress reflect earlier diff --git a/workplans/CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md b/workplans/CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md index 58495ef..5f0a104 100644 --- a/workplans/CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md +++ b/workplans/CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ id: CB-WP-0008 kind: product title: "Ship INTENT stage 0: a GROUND game you can actually play" -status: in_progress +status: done state_hub_workstream_id: "ee960213-ffc9-4654-a962-35017a231fe2" --- @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ at 2, 3 and 4 players** with the placeholder Problem values. Table in ```task id: CB-WP-0008-T04 -status: todo +status: done priority: high state_hub_task_id: "aa4ab660-d60c-49cc-b883-3fd20ccd0e3f" ``` @@ -141,3 +141,11 @@ Commit `evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md`: Then the retrospective the maintainer asked for: **six passes in, is the loop earning its keep?** Answer with the spend curve, not with argument. + +**Done 2026-08-01.** [CB-EV-0007](../evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md). +Stage 0 is shipped. The pass ran at **$0.123/response** — the best +recorded, tied with CB-WP-0004 — and is the first to satisfy SH-1 and +SH-2 in its own window. The meta budget read **61% OVER** and the +evidence file says why: the budget I built two tasks ago aggregates +cumulatively and cannot see a pass that is 100% product. Not fixed here; +v1.5 forbids opening meta work above the line.