coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

CB-WP-0008-T04: CB-EV-0007 — stage 0 is shipped, and the spend curve is a V

Browse source 
Stage 0's ten items are met. Three qualifications are recorded rather
than hidden behind checkmarks: GR-E01's threshold is unreachable below
five seats with the placeholder fixture, GR-A13 admits a SOLVE that
resolves to nothing, and GR-E03 has no scenario at all — implemented,
unreferenced, and would not fail if deleted.

The second-consumer verdict INTENT was waiting for: every abstraction
with a consumer fits, and the one with none is still unused. Bots and
the CLI drove Aggregate, Project, parse_command and the replay bundles
unchanged. CommitWindow had its best chance at a second user and did not
get one; its delete-by date stands.

The retrospective answers with the curve: 0.123, 0.228, 0.362, 0.298,
0.123 dollars per response across the last five passes. Neither
"meta is expensive" nor "compaction did it" survives the data. What does:
cost per response tracks how far the work is from a runnable check. The
meta passes that shipped a command were cheap; the ones that argued about
what a number means were not.

The meta budget reads 61% OVER on a pass that is 100% product, because
it aggregates over every task ever closed — the same defect CB-RES-0005
found in SH-1/SH-2 and that CB-WP-0007 T01 fixed for session shape. Not
fixed here: v1.5 forbids opening meta work above the line, so the
budget's first real act was to stop me from improving the budget.

Also fixes a doc comment that claimed DARVO was unimplemented for weeks
after it shipped. facts-check gates duplicated numbers; nothing gates a
prose claim about code.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-01 15:25:19 +02:00
parent d97e8e825d
commit d1ed3119dc
3 changed files with 218 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
workplans/CB-WP-0008-ship-stage-0.md
View file

@ -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.