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>
evaluate
CB-EV-0027.
The supply is never exceeded, and the link row explains why: GR-L01's two
slots per seat ARE the twelve link tokens, the same constraint written
twice. Nothing was designed to make that true; it fell out.
The Focus/Blame check was wrong and I caught it -- fifth instance of the
family CB-EV-0019 named (a number computed correctly about the wrong
subject) and the FIRST caught before leaving the repo, rather than by an
adversarial reviewer or the maintainer. That is one data point, not a
trend. What differed is that this pass read its own output and asked what
exactly it had compared. The family still has no control: facts-check
catches copies that disagree and nothing catches a correct computation
over the wrong subject.
The height limit went 460 -> 500, and the evidence argues why that is a
correction and not a concession. 460 was a number picked while fixing the
unplayable table -- no derivation. 500 has one: ~800px viewport less ~120
header and ~150 controls leaves ~530, and the version that broke dragging
declared 620. An underived limit is a measurement defect; replacing it
with a derived one is CB-WP-0021 T06's rule applied rather than evaded. A
later pass wanting 560 has to move the viewport budget, not the number.
CHAOS WINDOW 2 IS CLOSED. Twelve declarations, zero 8s, zero overrides.
Its retirement condition -- retire if an override changes nothing twice
running -- was untestable from the first declaration to the last, and
CB-EV-0024, 0025 and 0026 each said so; this is the fourth and final.
Window 1 at d4: 12 declarations, 2 overrides, both changed the outcome.
Window 2 at d8: 12, 0, none.
The verdict this supports is that d8 bought rarity by spending evidence --
stronger than "the rate is too low", because the rate was chosen without
asking what sample size the retirement condition needs. Recording that
changes how the loop constrains its own operation, which is a tier-M
trigger in its own right, so it is OUTSTANDING and named rather than
bundled here. Leaving it implicit is exactly how ground-game's ten rulings
went uncollected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
