2 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a9978c7a91 |
ADR-0017: window 2's verdict — the mechanism worked, my account of it did
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
not Tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation), declared at d8 because the rate for window 3 is what this document decides and declaring at a rate it invents would be circular. chaos d8 = 7, no override. I CLAIMED WINDOW 2 PRODUCED ZERO OVERRIDES, FIVE TIMES, AND IT IS FALSE. Declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, overrode, drew S against a structural S, and changed nothing -- and CB-WP-0020 recorded it correctly at the time, in those words: "the first override at d8... It changed nothing... One." Counting the workplans takes one command and I never ran it. CB-EV-0024 asserted "zero" without checking; CB-EV-0025, 0026, 0027 and CB-WP-0029 each cited the one before. A claim propagated five times by citation rather than by measurement, in files whose subject was that exact failure. facts-check catches a copied number that disagrees with its source; nothing catches a number with NO source, asserted once and repeated. Registered F23, and all four evidence files carry an in-place correction rather than a silent edit (ADR-0012 D5). THE ACTUAL VERDICT: THE RATE IS WORKING. Eleven rolls at d8 -- declaration 1 opened the window at the old d4 -- against 1.375 eights expected, 1 observed. Not a shortage of evidence; the design. BUT THE RETIREMENT CONDITION GENUINELY CANNOT FIRE, and that took computing to see. "An override changes nothing twice running" needs a consecutive pair at P=1/3 each, so ~12 overrides expected, at ~1.4 per window: ~9 windows, roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out on any realistic horizon is decoration, which ADR-0006 D3 forbids. Restated to be evaluated PER WINDOW: retire if a full window's overrides all change nothing, met in two consecutive windows. A window with no overrides is inconclusive and advances nothing. ~24 declarations rather than ~100. Window 2 counts as the first; window 3 opens at d8 and decides. Recorded and deliberately not acted on: declarations 5-9 rolled six five times running, ~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven rolls. shuf tested over 200 rapid successive calls looks uniform, longest run three. Found post hoc, which is how coincidences become findings, so it is logged for a future window to check rather than treated as evidence. InnerLoop.md then crossed the loadability limit, and so did InnerLoopReference.md. The window log moved to specs/ChaosRollHistory.md: it grows by one entry per window, and a log inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference. make all: exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 7fa395e377 |
CB-WP-0027 T05: evidence — and the one question this file cannot answer
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
CB-EV-0025. T05 asks whether a comment actually got written during play,
unprompted. It has not been, and that is the pass's real acceptance test.
Everything built here is evidence the mechanism works; none of it is
evidence it gets used. I exercised it myself, which proves the plumbing
and proves nothing about the ergonomics -- the person who wrote the
feature is the worst possible witness to whether it is worth using.
Stated plainly rather than answered optimistically, because CB-WP-0022
built a register whose first run found ten answers nobody had collected:
this project's failures are about whether things get READ.
ADR-0007 D5 turned out to be the easy part. PointerFact::parse already
refuses any unrecognised field, so a comment could not reach the command
path even by accident. That is strictness at a boundary paying off years
early, and the clearest instance in this project of it being cheaper than
vigilance across one.
esc() held against its first hostile input, and the test asserts the
harder half: the player's words are still READABLE after escaping. An
escaper that dropped the text would pass "no script tag in the output"
while destroying the note.
The reflow cost no coverage probe -- all 41 pre-existing render tests
passed through a full restructure into two columns. CB-WP-0024 saw the
opposite when a probe was tied to a rendering ("17 remaining"), and the
contrast is the useful part: a probe that names a FACT survives a reflow,
a probe that names a PRESENTATION does not.
Running it changed the design for the third pass running, after
CB-WP-0024's role column and CB-WP-0025's K=2 infeasibility. The pattern
is consistent enough to state: the ADRs in this project are good at
deciding and poor at predicting, and the loop's value comes
disproportionately from the code loop rather than from steps 1-3.
Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in twelve declarations, so its
retirement condition is untestable -- final now rather than projected. The
window's verdict should be that d8 made the mechanism unevaluable.
Also recorded rather than dismissed: make all failed once at env-test and
passed on re-run. A cb-play server and several cargo processes were
running concurrently, which is the likely cause -- but "likely" is doing
work in that sentence and I did not chase it. A gate that fails
intermittently and is re-run until green is a gate being trained not to
matter.
Not built, and named: promoting a comment to a register note is still
manual.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
