CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target

ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).

D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:

  CB-WP-0011 pass      54 with tools    0 batched    0.0%
    gap -> next decl   16 with tools    6 batched   37.5%
  CB-WP-0012 pass      86 with tools    0 batched    0.0%
    gap -> next decl   10 with tools    1 batched   10.0%
  CB-WP-0013 so far    10 with tools    0 batched    0.0%

Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.

This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.

Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.

D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.

The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.

AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.

gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.

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

decisions/ADR-0004-am4-ratification.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # ADR-0004: ratify AM-4a and AM-4b
 
+> **Superseded measurement (ADR-0008 D2/D3, 2026-08-02).** The AM-4a
+> figures below were taken with an instrument that counted proc-macro
+> crates — 89,048 lines, 36.2% — which run in the compiler and never
+> reach a binary. Corrected, the same tree measures **157,202** against
+> a target moved to **161,000**. The numbers below are left as the
+> record of what was measured then, and are no longer live facts.
+
+
 status: accepted
 date: 2026-07-31
 decided by: maintainer (Bernd Worsch), 2026-07-31
@@ -49,7 +57,7 @@ At the time of the retarget, `make dep-weight`:
 
 | configuration | crates | third-party LOC |
 |---|---|---|
-| shipped-runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | **246,250** | <!-- fact:am4a_loc -->
+| shipped-runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | **246,250** | <!-- historical: measured under the pre-ADR-0008 instrument; not a live fact -->
 | dev-toolchain (default features) | 29 | **317,021** | <!-- fact:am4b_loc -->
 | own source | — | 3,443 |
 

decisions/ADR-0008-instrument-corrections.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# ADR-0008: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a to count what ships
+
+status: accepted
+date: 2026-08-02
+decided by: agent, under the standing loop authorization. One item is
+reserved for the maintainer — see §Reserved.
+tier: M (structural M — changes how the loop constrains its own operation:
+a gate floor and a budget instrument, InnerLoop v1.6 / ADR-0006 D5;
+chaos d4=3 → no override). Tier M merges survey and ADR into one document,
+which this is; the adversarial review is optional and was not run.
+references: [CB-WP-0013](../workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md),
+[SessionShape.md](../specs/SessionShape.md) §4,
+[ADR-0006](ADR-0006-adaptive-control-gates.md) D1/D2/D4,
+[ADR-0007](ADR-0007-render-html-not-a-port.md) D4,
+[CB-EV-0010](../evidence/CB-EV-0010-render-port.md) §5
+
+## Context
+
+Two instruments were found wrong by the passes that used them. Neither
+error was in the direction that flattered us, and one of them has been
+producing a standing breach report for seven passes.
+
+---
+
+## Decision 1 — SH-3 is retired as a gate and kept as a diagnostic
+
+### The survey: three defects, each deeper than the last
+
+**First (CB-WP-0013 T01): the sample.** `--shape-budget` windows since the
+last commit and is read while writing the evidence file — right after a
+commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location
+statistics and survive that. SH-3 is a rate; at n=2 its only values are
+0%, 50%, 100%. Six evidence files quoted the resulting `0.0%` as a
+measurement. Fixed: below a derived minimum of 14 the tool now prints
+`insufficient sample` and no verdict.
+
+**Second: the claimed decline was also an artifact.** This workplan's own
+Purpose stated that batching *"has got worse"* — pinned history 7.8–8.6%
+against per-pass windows of 1.1–6.3%. **That was wrong**, and by the same
+class of error it was written to correct. The two figures come from
+differently-placed windows, not from different behaviour. Withdrawn.
+
+**Third, and the one that decides this: the window and the metric are
+systematically anti-correlated.** Measured, by re-deriving batching
+independently of `cb-cost` from the raw transcripts:
+
+| window | responses with tools | batched | rate |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| CB-WP-0011 pass | 54 | 0 | **0.0%** |
+| gap → next declaration | 16 | 6 | **37.5%** |
+| CB-WP-0012 pass | 86 | 0 | **0.0%** |
+| gap → next declaration | 10 | 1 | **10.0%** |
+| CB-WP-0013 so far | 10 | 0 | **0.0%** |
+
+**Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses across three passes, and
+37.5% in the gap between two of them** — comfortably above the 20% floor.
+
+The cause is not discipline. Batching requires two tool calls whose inputs
+are both known at once. Orientation and survey work is full of those: read
+four files, run three probes. Implementation has almost none, because each
+step consumes the previous step's result — read, edit, test, read the
+failure, fix. **So SH-3 measures what kind of work is happening.**
+
+And SH-3's window is *since the last commit*, which during a pass is
+always in-pass work. **The metric is structurally incapable of reading
+above ~0% in the window it is gated on.** It is not a strict gate — it can
+only be met by not working.
+
+### The decision
+
+**SH-3 stops being a gate.** The 20% floor and the `[SOFT]` verdict are
+removed. `cb-cost` continues to report the batching rate as a diagnostic,
+over the whole session, where it reads 5.8% (57 batched of 984 responses
+with tool calls).
+
+Four reasons, strongest first:
+
+1. **It cannot report what it gates on.** §above. A floor that the
+   measurement window structurally excludes is not a target.
+2. **It measures composition, not waste.** Penalising an implementation
+   pass for not batching penalises it for being an implementation pass.
+3. **Its own spec bounds its value.** `specs/SessionShape.md` §4:
+   *"eliminating every avoidable single-call turn would remove at most a
+   few percent of turns, worth roughly $2–4 on a $93 pass"*, and *"batch
+   because it is free, not because it is the lever."* It also calls SH-3
+   *"the least valuable"* of the three.
+4. **Seven passes, seven breach reports, zero actions.** ADR-0006 D4:
+   rituals cash out or go.
+
+### This is not retargeting to match the measurement
+
+`specs/SessionShape.md` forbids that explicitly, and CB-WP-0003 T07 exists
+to prevent it, so the distinction has to be stated rather than assumed:
+
+- **Retargeting** would be moving the floor from 20% to 6% because 6% is
+  what we measure. That is not done and is still forbidden.
+- **This** removes the gate on the argument that the *quantity* does not
+  deserve one — established before the disposition, from the window
+  structure and from the spec's own valuation.
+
+And the obvious objection — *retiring a metric right when it shows a
+regression looks like burying it* — is answered by the second defect: the
+regression was an artifact of window placement and has been withdrawn.
+There is no established decline to bury. The number is still reported;
+only the verdict is gone.
+
+## Decision 2 — AM-4a counts `--edges normal,no-proc-macro`
+
+ADR-0007 D4, owed. AM-4a's figure includes proc-macro crates that run in
+the compiler and never reach a binary: **89,048 lines, 36.2%** of the
+shipped-runtime figure, `syn` alone 66,916.
+
+`tools/dep-weight.py` measures `--edges normal,no-proc-macro` for the
+shipped-runtime configuration.
+
+## Decision 3 — the target moves down with the instrument
+
+Correcting the metric from 246,250 to 157,202 while leaving the target at
+250,000 would hand this project **89,048 lines of headroom it did not
+earn**, in the same commit that reveals the error. That is the shape of
+change this repo has twice refused, and refusing it here costs nothing:
+
+> **AM-4a's shipped-runtime target moves from 250,000 to 161,000.**
+
+161,000 preserves the *ratio* the ratified target expressed — 250,000 was
+set against a 246,250 measurement, i.e. ~1.5% of headroom; 161,000 against
+157,202 is ~2.4%. Rounding to a round number slightly *above* strict
+proportionality is deliberate and is the only place this decision gives
+anything back, because a target that leaves 1.5% of room is a target that
+fails on a dependency's patch release.
+
+**AM-4b (dev-toolchain) is left alone**, at 350,000 against a 317,021
+measurement. It is not corrected in this pass because its proc-macro share
+has not been measured, and correcting a second instrument on the strength
+of the first one's ratio is exactly the error this ADR exists to fix.
+Filed as owed.
+
+## Reserved for the maintainer
+
+**AM-4a still cannot survive INTENT stage 2**, and this decision makes that
+worse rather than better. `wgpu` + `winit` is 1,741,979 marginal lines
+against a target now proposed at 161,000 — **10.8×**, up from 7×. ADR-0007
+raised it; nothing here settles it. The correction below is honest
+book-keeping, not headroom for stage 2, and it should not be read as
+having made the stage-2 problem smaller.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- One fewer gate, and the gate registry gets its first retirement. That is
+  also **`GATE-REVIEW`'s first `caught` entry** — the registry's
+  `retire_if` says it must have *"retired, tightened, or forced the
+  re-justification of"* something by its review date, and it now has.
+- Every AM-4a figure in this repo's history overstates the load by 36%.
+  Those documents are history and are not rewritten; the correction lives
+  in `specs/GameKernel.md` §4 and here.
+- The batching diagnostic stays visible, so if in-pass batching ever
+  becomes possible the number will show it without a gate having to be
+  re-litigated first.