The maintainer asked for a rule for what the budget is FOR: main spend on
the task at hand, some on control, review and improvement, 80/20 to
start, adjustable by phase.
META-25 has a threshold and no stated purpose, which is why the number
has been argued three times. The purpose goes first.
Recorded in the task: the ratio and the window are a pair. Over a
trailing 3-pass window one meta pass at parity cost is already 33%, so a
20% line there means 'one in five AND half price' rather than 'one in
five'. Over trailing 5, 20% is exactly one pass in five at normal cost,
which is the literal reading of the instruction.
The phase adjustment must be declared, argued and expiring in the shape
gates.toml already uses -- a threshold anyone may move is not a
threshold, and this project fixes limits structurally rather than
raising them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
