Declare CB-WP-0019: the AM-4 family's last two defects, tier M

Both owed numbers measured BEFORE declaring, so the work is scoped
against facts. AM-4b's scope: 29 crates / 317,021 lines instrumented
against 57 / 725,258 real, so 28 crates and 408,237 lines are uncounted
-- more than its own 350,000 target. AM-4b's proc-macro share: 109,585
lines, 15.1%.

That 15.1% vindicates ADR-0008 D2, which refused to correct AM-4b using
AM-4a's measured 36.2% because 'correcting a second instrument on the
strength of the first one's ratio is the error this change exists to
fix'. Borrowing would have been wrong by more than a factor of two.

Also carries the self-quoting rule, which is six-for-six under-reported
by never less than 30% with both causes diagnosed, and still lives only
in evidence files.

Structural tier M: changes a budget's scope and target and a reporting
rule. Chaos d8=5, no override -- the first roll at the new rate.
Declaration 2 of window 2. Meta budget 0%; ADR-0006 D2 exempts
instrument repair regardless.

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

workplans/CB-WP-0019-the-am4-family.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+id: CB-WP-0019
+kind: meta
+title: "The AM-4 family's last two defects, and the self-quoting rule"
+status: todo
+---
+
+# Purpose
+
+```
+structural tier  M   (changes how the loop constrains its own operation:
+                      a budget's scope and target, and a reporting rule)
+chaos            d8 = 5  → no override
+declared tier    M
+```
+
+Declaration 2 of chaos window 2, and **the first roll at d8**.
+
+**Meta budget is 0%** over the trailing three, all product. ADR-0006 D2
+exempts instrument repair anyway, and this is the repair four evidence
+files have listed as owed.
+
+## Two numbers that have been owed for five passes
+
+Both were measured before this declaration, so the work is scoped against
+facts rather than an intention to find them.
+
+**AM-4b's scope**, owed since CB-EV-0012 §3:
+
+| | crates | lines |
+|---|---:|---:|
+| AM-4b as instrumented (`games-ground`, `--edges normal`) | 29 | 317,021 |
+| the whole workspace, dev edges included | 57 | 725,258 |
+| **uncounted** | **28** | **408,237** |
+
+**The dev-toolchain budget is blind to more source than its own target
+of 350,000.** `criterion`, `clap`, `ciborium`, `quick-js` and now
+`cb-game-runtime`'s dev graph are all invisible to it.
+
+**AM-4b's proc-macro share**, owed since ADR-0008 D2: **109,585 lines,
+15.1%** of the real graph.
+
+That 15.1% is worth stating plainly, because it **vindicates a decision
+made for the right reason**. ADR-0008 D2 refused to correct AM-4b using
+AM-4a's measured 36.2%, saying *"correcting a second instrument on the
+strength of the first one's ratio is the error this change exists to
+fix."* The shares are 36.2% and 15.1%. Borrowing would have been wrong by
+a factor of more than two.
+
+## Task: give AM-4b a scope, and a target that matches it
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0019-T01
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+Decide what AM-4b is **for**, then instrument that.
+
+The two honest candidates, and the choice needs an argument rather than a
+default:
+
+- **Widen it** to the whole workspace with dev edges — everything a
+  contributor's `cargo test` acquires. Then the target must move with the
+  instrument, exactly as ADR-0008 D3 moved AM-4a's, and **the target moves
+  to fit the measurement, not the measurement to fit the target.**
+- **Narrow the claim** to what it actually measures and rename it, if
+  "one package's non-dev graph" is the thing worth bounding.
+
+Whichever wins, **do not repeat ADR-0008 D3's generosity by reflex.** That
+decision gave back a small rounding-up because a target with 1.5% of room
+fails on a patch release; a target set 130% above the current reading
+would not be a budget at all.
+
+**Controls:**
+- the mutation must still go red — AM-4b's row is currently enforced and
+  must stay so;
+- a test that the configuration measures what its name says: if it claims
+  dev edges, a dev-only dependency must move the number. `quick-js` is the
+  case to use, because it is dev-only and it is what exposed this.
+
+## Task: the proc-macro share, decided not just measured
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0019-T02
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+15.1% is measured. What is owed is the **decision**: does the dev budget
+exclude proc-macro crates as the shipped one does?
+
+The shipped case was easy — a proc-macro never reaches a shipped binary,
+so counting it in "what a game ships" was simply wrong. **The dev case is
+not the same question.** A proc-macro *is* acquired, *is* compiled, *is*
+unaudited third-party source on a contributor's machine, and the
+acquisition rule (ADR-0007 D3) counts what the build causes to be fetched.
+
+So the arguments point opposite ways and the answer is not inherited.
+Decide it, and say which of the two rules governs when they disagree.
+
+**Whatever is decided, ADR-0008 D2's note that AM-4b's share is unmeasured
+must stop being true in the source.**
+
+## Task: write the self-quoting rule down
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0019-T03
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+Six passes, six under-reports, both halves of the defect diagnosed, and
+the rule still lives only in evidence files:
+
+| pass | reported mid-flight | settled | under by |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| CB-WP-0009 | $6.73 | $11.31 | 40% |
+| CB-WP-0011 | $4.23 | $7.02 | 40% |
+| CB-WP-0012 | $8.82 | $14.52 | 39% |
+| CB-WP-0013 | $5.78 | $8.26 | 30% |
+| CB-WP-0015 | $15.14 | $22.70 | 33% |
+| CB-WP-0017 | $5.19 | $9.48 | 45% |
+
+**Six for six, always low, never by less than 30%.** That is not noise;
+it is a systematic bias with two identified causes (CB-EV-0013 §5,
+CB-EV-0015 §6):
+
+1. a pass's window runs to the **next** pass's first commit, so the
+   previous pass is not final until the one after it starts;
+2. **a figure read earlier in a session is an in-flight figure regardless
+   of whose name is on it** — quoting from memory defeats the rule even
+   when the boundary is right.
+
+Put it in `specs/InnerLoop.md` as a rule with both halves, and make
+`loop-lint` check what it can. A rule that lives only in prose has been
+re-derived three times already.
+
+**The honest question to answer while writing it:** is the right rule
+"quote two passes back", or "re-run the instrument at quote time", or
+both? T03 of CB-WP-0018 used the second and it worked. Say which is load
+bearing.
+
+## Task: evidence
+
+```task
+id: CB-WP-0019-T04
+status: todo
+priority: high
+```
+
+`evidence/CB-EV-0017-*.md`.
+
+- **The AM-4 family, closed or not.** Four defects found across five
+  passes, none by looking for them. State whether any remain and whether
+  the family is now trustworthy — and if a fifth is plausible, say where.
+- **What five passes of being "owed" cost.** These two numbers were
+  carried as open items in four consecutive evidence files. Either the
+  carrying was cheap and correct, or it was a way of not doing the work;
+  say which, with the cost.
+- **Quote CB-WP-0018's cost by re-running the instrument.** Under the rule
+  T03 writes down.
+- **Chaos: declaration 2 of 12 in window 2, first roll at d8.**