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> |
|||
| eb8aa64c56 |
CB-WP-0028 T03/T08: one overhead table, and what the nine observations
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
turned out to be T03. One table_svg: seats around an elliptical table starting at the BOTTOM -- the viewer sits nearest the reader, as at a real table -- Problems and both stacks in the middle, each seat's played card between it and the centre, relations drawn between seats. Two renderers were DELETED: relations_svg and piles_svg. The task said one table not two diagrams, and leaving the old ones would have meant drawing the same thing twice and letting them drift. No coverage probe cost, through a restructure that merged three diagrams and removed two functions. Second confirmation of CB-WP-0027's finding: a probe naming a FACT survives a reflow, one naming a PRESENTATION does not. CB-WP-0024's "17 remaining" broke on a rendering change; this far larger reflow broke nothing. The new control is per seat count -- no two seat circles closer than 70px at 2 through 6 -- asserted rather than eyeballed at three, which is the only count anyone ever looks at. T08 (CB-EV-0026). Seven of nine observations were engine defects, one was a design finding, one was already true and nobody could tell. Observations 4 and 5 both dissolved and had ONE cause: nothing on the page said how drawing works, so a player built a mental model to fill the gap and reported the gap as two feature requests. The import gap was worse than "one of nineteen" -- 5 of 13 columns read from the file we DID vendor, discarded at parse time for eight days. Rule coverage was 59/59 throughout. The gate measures whether rules are EXERCISED; nothing measures whether a player can READ the game, and nothing cheaply could, which is why the person playing it is the instrument. TWO GATES WERE WRITTEN FOR A SMALLER WORLD, and neither was wrong when written. edition-check compared one recorded digest against Problems.csv regardless of which file it described -- correct with one vendored file, comparing across files with four. And a cb-play test asserted the literal "game over" and went red when a won game said "solved", which was T06 working; it now asserts the heading against the OUTCOME and covers the no-outcome case the original never touched. Chaos window 2 closes with zero overrides in eleven declarations at d8. Third and final statement of it: d8 bought rarity by spending evidence, and a mechanism producing no data across a full window cannot be evaluated by that window. make all: exit 0. 57 render tests, 26 cb-play, loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
