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

CB-WP-0030: a control for the wrong-subject family
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Details

Browse source 
Seven claims in this project have been wrong the same way — the arithmetic
right, the subject wrong. Four reached a document or another repo.

ADR-0018 states the rule: a measured claim names the variable it depends
on and shows the measurement moving with it. GameDesign §1.4 adds it as a
fourth admissibility clause; the existing three are untouched.

Honest yield is 3 clear + 1 partial of 7. It misses a count never made and
a claim that is not a number, and D3 names those so nobody stops looking.
The tempting fix — closing facts-check's 62 untagged literals — would have
caught 1 of 7 and is deferred as separate work rather than bundled.

loop-lint gains check_sensitivity_stated over arithmetic register rows,
mutation-proven red on F17 and green when restored, with four self-test
controls. It checks presence, never adequacy, and says so in its output.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-08-07 11:35:41 +02:00
parent ffd2279e16
commit d7279483f6
6 changed files with 503 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

5
WORK-RECORDS.md
View file

@ -37,6 +37,7 @@
| workplan | CB-WP-0027 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0027-the-commentary-track.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0028 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0028-the-table-you-sit-at.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0029 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md |
| workplan | CB-WP-0030 | ready | — | workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md |
| task | CB-WP-0001-T01 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md |
| task | CB-WP-0001-T02 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md |
| task | CB-WP-0001-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md |
@ -194,3 +195,7 @@
| task | CB-WP-0029-T02 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md |
| task | CB-WP-0029-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md |
| task | CB-WP-0029-T04 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0029-the-tokens-on-the-table.md |
| task | CB-WP-0030-T01 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md |
| task | CB-WP-0030-T02 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md |
| task | CB-WP-0030-T03 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md |
| task | CB-WP-0030-T04 | todo | — | workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md |

126
decisions/ADR-0018-a-number-that-does-not-move.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
# ADR-0018: a number that does not move when its subject moves is measuring something else
status: accepted
date: 2026-08-07
decided by: agent, under the standing loop authorization
tier: M (structural M — adds an admissibility requirement, changing how
the loop constrains its own operation; ADR-0006 D5). chaos d8 = 7 → no
override. **Declaration 1 of chaos window 3.**
references: [CB-WP-0030](../workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md),
CB-EV-0019 §1 (where the family was named),
[GameDesign.md](../specs/GameDesign.md) §1,
[RetrospectiveAnalysis.md](../specs/RetrospectiveAnalysis.md) §4.1,
[ADR-0017](ADR-0017-chaos-window-2-verdict.md) (instance 7)
## Context
Seven claims in this project have been wrong in the same way: the
arithmetic was right and the **subject** was not. Four reached a document
or another repository.
## D1 — what this does not do, stated first
**`facts-check`'s untagged surface is not this family's control.** It
reports **62** untagged literal copies across 7 registry keys and fails on
none. That is a real gap, and closing it would have caught **at most one**
of the seven:
- Instance 1's denominator **was** a registry fact and **was correct** —
`am4a_target` = 3,798 is right; AM-4a simply does not cover the code
being priced.
- Instances 2, 4, 5 and 6 were **fresh measurements** with no registry key
at all.
> **A tag proves a number came from somewhere. It cannot prove the
> somewhere was the right place.**
The untagged surface is worth closing on its own merits and is **named as
separate work**. Bundling it here would let this decision claim a victory
it did not win — which is the family's own error, applied to itself.
## D2 — the rule
> **A measured claim must name the variable it depends on, and show the
> measurement moving with it.**
>
> **A number that does not move when its subject moves is measuring
> something else.**
This is not new machinery. It is the generalisation of two things this
project already built, each in response to one instance:
- `RetrospectiveAnalysis` §4.1's **policy panel** — born from instance 5,
which is why a single policy's win rate may not be reported as a
difficulty;
- `attack-value.rs`'s **one-varying-number sweep** — built for F17, which
varies ATTACK's rank and holds everything else fixed.
**Both were built after an instance. The rule requires them before.**
## D3 — the yield, instance by instance, including the misses
| # | the claim | would D2 have caught it? |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | `csv` against AM-4a's headroom | **yes** — vary which crates are in scope and the budget moves; that *is* the error |
| 2 | *"12 in the file"* | **no** — but §1.2's row-level rule, born from it, does |
| 3 | SOLVE's wrong condition | **no** — not a number |
| 4 | 112–161 µs per node | **yes** — cost must rise with branching; it fell, and the tell was already printed |
| 5 | too easy at 5–6 seats | **yes** — vary the policy and the rate collapses to 0% |
| 6 | 2 Focus/Blame conflicts | **partly** — varying seat count would scale a real conflict; it is the weakest row |
| 7 | window 2 had zero overrides | **no** — a count that was never made has no sensitivity to state |
**Three clear, one partial, three missed.**
**The two it catches outright are the two that travelled furthest**, and
both were bound for `ground-game`: instance 4 sat in a survey, instance 5
was queued for a repo blocked on that exact number. A control that catches
the consequential half is worth having even at 3/7.
**What it misses is stated so nobody stops looking.** Instance 7 needs
counting, not sensitivity. Instance 3 was not a number. **No syntactic gate
detects a wrong subject in general** — it is a semantic error, and
claiming otherwise would build a gate that cannot cash out (ADR-0006 D3,
ADR-0017 D2).
## D4 — where it binds
- **Register findings whose claim is arithmetic** — the same scope
GameDesign §1.2 already uses.
- **Anything leaving the repo.** Four of the seven were outbound or nearly
so, and the recipient caught one we did not.
**Not** every number in every artifact. A rule that binds everywhere is
obeyed nowhere, and this project has 62 untagged literals as evidence of
what a broad, unenforced requirement produces.
## D5 — half of it is mechanical, and only half
`loop-lint` can check that a sensitivity line **is present**. It cannot
check that the sensitivity is the **right one**, because that is the same
judgement the rule exists to force.
> **The lint checks presence, not adequacy, and must say so in its own
> output** — otherwise a green lint reads as *"the claim was verified"*,
> and the control becomes a way of not looking.
That is the honest split: the mechanical half stops the requirement being
forgotten; the judgement half stays with the author and the reviewer, who
between them caught five of the seven.
## Consequences
- `GameDesign.md` §1 gains a fourth clause. The existing three are
untouched — each was bought by an earlier instance.
- `loop-lint` gains a check over the register's arithmetic rows.
- Existing rows are brought under it or exempted **with a reason**.
- The untagged-facts surface is recorded as separate, unclosed work.
## What was rejected
| rejected | why |
|---|---|
| closing the untagged-facts surface as *the* control | 1 of 7; a tag reproduces a wrong subject faithfully |
| requiring a regenerating command on every claim | catches transcription, and six of seven were not transcription errors |
| a rule binding every number everywhere | obeyed nowhere; the 62 untagged literals are the evidence |
| a lint that claims to verify the claim | it can only see presence, and pretending otherwise trains the eye to stop at green |
| stating a yield of "the family is closed" | the family's own error, applied to itself |

168
evidence/CB-EV-0028-a-number-that-does-not-move.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
# CB-EV-0028 — a number that does not move
CB-WP-0030 T04. Tier M (structural M — adds an admissibility requirement;
chaos d8 = 7 → no override). **Declaration 1 of chaos window 3**, opened
2026-08-07 by ADR-0017. Closed 2026-08-07.
**Delivered:** [ADR-0018](../decisions/ADR-0018-a-number-that-does-not-move.md),
`GameDesign.md` §1.4, `check_sensitivity_stated` in `loop-lint` with four
self-test controls, and a mutation proof that it goes red on a real row.
---
## 1. The seven instances, re-run against the rule
The workplan's own falsifier: **if fewer than 3 of 7, the rule is not the
one.**
| # | the claim | caught? | by what, exactly |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | `csv` costs 21,613 against 3,798 of headroom | **yes** | vary which crates AM-4a scopes and the headroom moves — that *is* the error |
| 2 | *"12 in the file"* | no | §1.2's row-level rule, born from it, does |
| 3 | SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem | no | **not a number** |
| 4 | 112–161 µs per node | **yes** | cost must rise with branching; it fell |
| 5 | too easy at 5–6 seats | **yes** | vary the policy, the rate goes 100% → 0% on the same deals |
| 6 | 2 Focus/Blame conflicts | **partly** | varying seat count scales a real conflict; a phantom one need not |
| 7 | window 2 had zero overrides | no | **a count never made has no sensitivity** |
**Three clear, one partial, three missed.** Above the falsifier, and not
by much.
**The distribution matters more than the count.** The two it catches
outright, 4 and 5, are the two that travelled furthest — instance 4 sat in
a published survey, instance 5 was queued for `ground-game`, which was
blocked on that exact number. **The three it misses were each caught by a
human re-reading**, which is the mechanism the rule generalises and cannot
replace.
**Row 6 is honestly "partly" and stays that way.** A phantom conflict from
comparing the wrong disc set *might* scale with seats too. The variation
would have prompted the question *what am I comparing*, which is what
actually found it — but that is the rule working as a **prompt**, not as a
test, and writing it down as a catch would inflate the yield.
## 2. What the untagged surface is worth, since it was measured
`facts-check` reports **62 untagged literal copies** across 7 registry
keys and fails on none.
**Against this family it is worth 1 of 7, and arguably 0.** Instance 1's
denominator was a registry fact and was **correct** — 3,798 *is* AM-4a's
target. The error was that AM-4a does not cover the code being priced. A
provenance tag would have reproduced the wrong subject faithfully and with
a citation.
> **A tag proves a number came from somewhere. It cannot prove the
> somewhere was the right place.**
Instances 2, 4, 5 and 6 were **fresh measurements** — there was no
registry key to tag.
**It is still worth closing, for a different failure mode**: a literal
that drifts from its registry key is a copy that disagrees, and
`facts-check` exists for exactly that. **Named as separate work and not
done here** — bundling it would have let this pass claim a victory it did
not win, which is this family's own error applied to itself.
## 3. Is a presence-only lint worth having
The strongest argument against: **a green lint reads as "the claim was
verified."** If it trains the eye to stop at green, it is worse than
nothing, because five of the seven instances were caught by an eye that
did not stop.
Three things decide it in favour.
**It says what it is, in its own output.** The finding text ends *"NOTE:
this checks presence, not adequacy."* A reader who stops at green is
stopping against an explicit statement rather than an implied one.
**Its cost is bounded by scope.** It binds arithmetic register rows, not
every number in every artifact — 62 untagged literals are this project's
own evidence of what an unenforced everywhere-rule produces (ADR-0018 D4).
**The failure it prevents is forgetting, and forgetting is what happened.**
`RetrospectiveAnalysis` §4.1's policy panel and `attack-value.rs`'s
one-varying-number sweep both exist. Both were built **after** an
instance. Nothing asked for either **before**.
**Verdict: worth having, on the condition it never grows a claim it
cannot cash.** The moment its output implies verification, ADR-0006 D3
and ADR-0017 D2 both apply and it should be deleted.
## 4. The check fired on three real rows, and all three were wrong to fire
First run: F12, F15, F21 — **every one a `note`**.
A note is by definition a finding **without** a reproduction
(GameDesign §3.1). There is no measurement, so there is nothing for a
sensitivity statement to be about; the check was demanding one anyway.
**The fix went into the check, not into three exemptions.** Three
hand-written `sensitivity-exempt` comments would have produced green with
the rule still wrong, and the next note would have needed a fourth. **That
is the difference between a rule and a pile of special cases**, and the
exemption mechanism exists for genuine one-offs, not for a category the
rule should never have covered.
## 5. The mutation, and the moment it nearly passed as proof
The control is that the check **fails on a real row** — a lint that
cannot go red is decoration.
**The first mutation attempt did not fire, and I nearly read that as a
failed check.** I had rewritten two phrases in F17's prose ("varies
exactly one number" → "uses a policy") and expected red. Green. A debug
probe showed F17 *was* being reached, kind `degenerate`, state `raised`,
prose found — and still matched, because the text elsewhere said *"one
number varied."*
**The check was right and the mutation was incomplete.** Stripping every
trigger word produces:
```
[sensitivity] specs/FindingRegister.md
F17 (degenerate) states a quantity and names no variable it depends
on (GameDesign §1.4). ... NOTE: this checks presence, not adequacy.
```
and restoring the file returns it to green.
**This is worth recording because the near-miss is the same family.** *"The
lint does not fire"* was a correct observation about the wrong subject — I
had measured my mutation, not the check. A debug probe printing what the
check actually saw settled it in one run, which is the second-computation
mechanism §1 credits with catching all seven.
**Four self-test controls**, because a check that cannot say NO is
decoration and one that cannot say YES fires on everything: it catches a
bare arithmetic claim, **clears one that names its variable**, skips
non-arithmetic kinds, and skips notes.
## 6. A vocabulary defect, caught by a gate that already existed
This workplan shipped as `kind: process`. The vocabulary is
**product | meta | mixed**, and `make self-tests` said so immediately.
**No new control was needed and none was added.** Corrected to `meta` —
the workplan changes how the loop constrains its own operation, which is
what `meta` means. Worth one line here because the pass that added a gate
was itself caught by an older one, working exactly as intended.
## 7. Cost
`make cost`, not inlined (§Single source of fact). CB-EV-0019 §4's
unbounded chain is still unbounded.
## Open after this pass
- **The untagged-facts surface** (§2) — 62 copies, measured, deferred,
unclosed.
- **The rule catches 3½ of 7 and the family is not closed.** Instances 3
and 7 need different controls: a wrong condition is not a number, and a
count never made needs counting.
- **The lint's honesty is a claim about readers, not code** (§3), and only
a later pass reading a green run tests it.
- **F18** — `Relations`, `DARVO`, `Player_Mats`, `Glossary` unvendored;
still the only open register row with no reproduction.
- **Three of four scenarios never dealt**, carried from ADR-0015 D5.

32
specs/GameDesign.md
View file

@ -81,6 +81,38 @@ admissible, remained in the register, and remained queued for transmission
to `ground-game` for four days, because nothing treated a passing artifact
as a signal. It was stopped by an adversarial review, not by a control.
### 1.4 It must move when its subject moves
> **A measured claim names the variable it depends on, and shows the
> measurement moving with it.** A number that does not move when its
> subject moves is measuring something else.
ADR-0018. This is the fourth clause and the first three are unchanged —
each was bought by an earlier mistake and a rewrite would drop what they
paid for.
**Why it exists.** Seven claims in this project have been wrong the same
way: the arithmetic right, the subject wrong. Two of them were caught only
because someone varied something —
- a per-node cost that **fell** as branching **rose** (no per-node cost
can), and
- a win rate attributed to *the game* that collapsed to 0% under a second
policy on the same deals.
**Both were already printed when they shipped.** Nobody looked at whether
the number moved the way its subject demanded.
**Where it binds:** register findings whose claim is arithmetic, and
anything leaving the repo. **Not every number everywhere** — a rule that
binds everywhere is obeyed nowhere.
**What it does not catch, stated so nobody stops looking:** a count that
was never made (there is no sensitivity to state), and a claim that is not
a number. **No syntactic gate detects a wrong subject in general.** It is
a semantic error; `loop-lint` checks that a sensitivity line is *present*,
never that it is *adequate*.
## 2. Kinds
Five (ADR-0012 D4). **No kind exists without a finding that instantiates

99
tools/loop-lint.py
View file

@ -306,6 +306,74 @@ def check_gate_registry(root=REPO):
return out
def check_sensitivity_stated(root=REPO):
"""GameDesign §1.4 / ADR-0018 — a finding whose claim is arithmetic
must name the variable it depends on.
**This checks PRESENCE, NEVER ADEQUACY.** It cannot tell whether the
variable named is the right one; that is the judgement the rule exists
to force, and it stays with the author and the reviewer. A green run
here means "somebody wrote a sensitivity line", not "the claim was
verified" -- and if it is ever read as the second, the control has
become a way of not looking.
Seven claims in this project were arithmetically correct about the
wrong subject. Three of them would have been caught by varying
something; this is the half of that a machine can see.
"""
out = []
reg = os.path.join(root, "specs", "FindingRegister.md")
if not os.path.exists(reg):
return out
text = open(reg).read()
try:
block = text.split("<!-- design-register:begin -->")[1] \
.split("<!-- design-register:end -->")[0]
except IndexError:
return out
# Kinds whose claim is a quantity. `inert` and `unplayed` are about
# whether a thing happens at all, which has no denominator to get
# wrong.
ARITHMETIC = {"inconsistent", "degenerate", "underdetermined"}
exempt = set(re.findall(r"^<!-- sensitivity-exempt:\s*(\S+)\s+(.+?)\s*-->$",
text, re.M))
exempt_ids = {e[0] for e in exempt}
for line in block.splitlines():
line = line.strip()
if not line.startswith("|") or line.startswith("|---"):
continue
cells = [c.strip() for c in line.strip("|").split("|")]
if len(cells) != 7 or cells[0] == "id":
continue
fid, kind, state = cells[0], cells[1], cells[2]
# Closed rows are history; the rule binds what is still claimed.
# And a `note` is by definition a finding WITHOUT a reproduction
# (GameDesign §3.1) -- there is no measurement to be sensitive
# about, so requiring one would be asking for a sensitivity
# statement about nothing.
if state in ("withdrawn", "applied", "note") or kind not in ARITHMETIC:
continue
if fid in exempt_ids:
continue
# The prose block for this finding must say what moves it.
body = ""
m = re.search(rf"^- \*\*{re.escape(fid)} [^\n]*(?:\n(?!- \*\*F?U?\d).*)*",
text, re.M)
if m:
body = m.group(0)
if not re.search(r"varie[sd]|varying|sensitivit|moves with|held fixed|"
r"one number|second policy", body, re.I):
out.append(Finding(
"sensitivity", "specs/FindingRegister.md",
f"{fid} ({kind}) states a quantity and names no variable it "
f"depends on (GameDesign §1.4). Say what would move it, or "
f"add `<!-- sensitivity-exempt: {fid} <reason> -->`. "
f"NOTE: this checks presence, not adequacy."))
return out
CHECKS = (
check_loadability,
check_evidence_no_unmeasured,
@ -315,6 +383,7 @@ CHECKS = (
check_review_trail,
check_reporting_tools_self_test,
check_gate_registry,
check_sensitivity_stated,
)
@ -374,6 +443,36 @@ def self_test():
body += f"\n```task\nid: CB-WP-0100-T\nstatus: {t}\npriority: high\n```\n"
with open(os.path.join(tmp, "workplans", "CB-WP-0100-x.md"), "w") as fh:
fh.write(body)
# GameDesign §1.4 / ADR-0018. Four controls, because a check that
# cannot say NO is decoration and one that cannot say YES fires on
# everything.
os.makedirs(os.path.join(tmp, "specs"), exist_ok=True)
def reg(kind, state, prose):
body = ("<!-- design-register:begin -->\n\n"
"| id | kind | state | reproduction | role | raised | owner |\n"
"|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n"
f"| F99 | {kind} | {state} | x.rs | counterexample | 2026-01-01 | us |\n"
"\n<!-- design-register:end -->\n\n"
f"- **F99 — a claim.** {prose}\n")
with open(os.path.join(tmp, "specs", "FindingRegister.md"), "w") as fh:
fh.write(body)
reg("degenerate", "raised", "It is 42.")
check("sensitivity: an arithmetic claim with no variable is caught",
len(check_sensitivity_stated(tmp)) == 1)
reg("degenerate", "raised", "It is 42, and it varies with seat count.")
check("sensitivity: naming the variable clears it",
not check_sensitivity_stated(tmp),
"without this it would fire on everything")
reg("inert", "raised", "It is 42.")
check("sensitivity: a non-arithmetic kind is not asked",
not check_sensitivity_stated(tmp),
"`inert` is about whether a thing happens, not how much")
reg("degenerate", "note", "It is 42.")
check("sensitivity: a note has no measurement to be sensitive about",
not check_sensitivity_stated(tmp), "GameDesign §3.1")
wp("ready", ["done", "todo"])
f = check_workplan_lifecycle(tmp)
check("lifecycle detects `ready` after work has started",

79
workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md
View file

@ -1,8 +1,9 @@
---
id: CB-WP-0030
kind: process
kind: meta
title: "A number that does not move: a control for the wrong-subject family"
status: ready
status: done
state_hub_workstream_id: "e6a0dad9-9b45-41fb-92ab-07c8b5690366"
---
# Purpose
@ -84,8 +85,9 @@ applied to itself.**
```task
id: CB-WP-0030-T01
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "4be3630e-4c67-4ef9-a2f6-f689208b26b1"
```
`decisions/ADR-0018-*.md`.
@ -100,12 +102,31 @@ priority: high
half is mechanical.
- **Do not bundle the untagged-facts surface.** Name it as separate.
**Done 2026-08-07.**
[ADR-0018](../decisions/ADR-0018-a-number-that-does-not-move.md).
**D1 states what it does not do, first**, because the tempting fix was the
wrong one: closing the 62 untagged literals would have caught **1 of 7**,
and instance 1's denominator was a registry fact that was *correct*.
Deferred as separate work rather than bundled.
**D3 gives the yield instance by instance: three clear, one partial, three
missed.** The two it catches outright are the two that travelled furthest,
both bound for `ground-game`. **The misses are named** so nobody stops
looking — a count never made has no sensitivity, and instance 3 was not a
number.
**D5 splits it honestly**: the lint sees *presence*, never *adequacy*, and
its output says so — otherwise a green run reads as *"the claim was
verified"* and the control becomes a way of not looking.
## Task: the rule, in the spec that governs findings
```task
id: CB-WP-0030-T02
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "cefcc917-91ef-4dbb-ab92-743266874b81"
```
`specs/GameDesign.md` §1 already requires a reproduction that **exists**,
@ -119,12 +140,18 @@ only sums.
- **the existing three clauses are unchanged** — this is an addition, and
a rewrite would silently drop what earlier instances bought.
**Done 2026-08-07.** `GameDesign.md` §1.4, with the two instances that
motivate it stated in it: a per-node cost that **fell** as branching
**rose**, and a win rate attributed to the game that collapsed to 0% under
a second policy. **Both were already printed when they shipped.**
## Task: make the mechanical half mechanical
```task
id: CB-WP-0030-T03
status: todo
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "b773bc85-1f7b-4563-a0b5-3d5007162846"
```
`loop-lint` fails when a register row of an arithmetic kind lacks a
@ -139,12 +166,33 @@ sensitivity line.
a reason — a rule that only binds future rows leaves the six instances
unprotected.
**Done 2026-08-07.** `check_sensitivity_stated` in `loop-lint`.
**It fired on three real rows immediately — F12, F15, F21 — and all three
were `note`s.** A note is by definition a finding *without* a
reproduction (§3.1), so there is no measurement to be sensitive about;
requiring one would be asking for a sensitivity statement about nothing.
**That exclusion belongs in the check, not in three hand-written
exemptions**, and putting it there is the difference between a rule and a
pile of special cases.
**Mutation-proven on a real row.** Strip every sensitivity word from F17's
prose and the check goes red; restore it and green. The first mutation
attempt *failed to fire* because F17's text still said "one number varied"
— which is the check working, and worth recording as the moment it was
nearly mis-verified.
Four self-test controls: it catches a bare claim, **clears one that names
its variable** (without which it would fire on everything), skips
non-arithmetic kinds, and skips notes.
## Task: evidence
```task
id: CB-WP-0030-T04
status: todo
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "7206661a-a046-47bb-8f73-4b56328151af"
```
`evidence/CB-EV-0028-*.md`.
@ -155,3 +203,22 @@ priority: medium
deferred.
- **Whether a lint that checks presence is worth having at all**, or
whether it trains the eye to stop at green.
**Done 2026-08-07.**
[CB-EV-0028](../evidence/CB-EV-0028-a-number-that-does-not-move.md).
**Yield 3 clear + 1 partial of 7** — above the falsifier, and the two it
catches outright are the two that travelled furthest. Row 6 is recorded as
*partly* rather than as a catch, because the variation would have
*prompted* the question, not *tested* it.
**The untagged surface is worth 1 of 7 against this family** and is still
worth closing for drift — recorded as separate, unclosed work.
**The presence-only lint is worth having on one condition**: it must never
grow a claim it cannot cash. The day its output implies verification,
ADR-0006 D3 applies and it should be deleted.
**§6 records a vocabulary defect in this very workplan** — it shipped
`kind: process` against `product|meta|mixed` and `make self-tests` caught
it. The pass that added a gate was caught by an older one.