The windowed budget is confirmed for the failure it was written against
and not for the general claim: a single-pass window reads 0% for
CB-WP-0008 against 50% lifetime, but the trailing-3 window reads 45%
against 50%, inside the refutation band. The prediction was written
before the window size was chosen and did not say which comparison it
meant. Both readings are on record and whether 3 is the right window is
carried as open.
gate-review's first run: 9 gates, 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the
chaos roll and gate-review itself, both with dates. A registry where
everything looked productive would have been one written to look good.
D4 holds per pass, not per task: three of four tasks shipped a command,
and the two that did not are the spec change that makes the commands
normative and the evidence file that checks them.
Cost is the honest part. This pass cashed out three commands and ran at
$0.177/response — cheaper than every previous meta pass (0.228, 0.298,
0.362) and still 1.4x the product pass at 0.123. Partial support for D4,
not vindication. Context breached both shape targets because the pass ran
on an already-long session; reported, not gated.
Meta reads 45% of the trailing three against a soft 25%. Nothing was
displaced, but the number is over the line and the next pass should be
product.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
D2 the two exemptions — repairing the instrument that reports a breach
is always in budget, and the maintainer may authorize above-line work in
the workplan frontmatter. v1.5 had neither, and the first thing it did
was forbid fixing the budget's own defect.
D4 loop work cashes out into something runnable in the pass that invents
it, with the measured basis and the refutation condition stated.
D5 the tier table now triggers at M for changes to the loop's own
operation, closing the gap CB-RES-0005 §6 opened and this pass's own ADR
had to declare around.
The file went from 399 lines to 386: the chaos-roll calibration
rationale and the v1.0-v1.3 change log moved to InnerLoopReference.md.
Loadability is a gate too, and growing the file to fit a rule about
gates would have been the joke writing itself.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0006 D1. cb-cost gains pass_costs, which buckets responses into
workplan windows in a single read of the transcripts — calling collect()
once per boundary would re-read every transcript per window, and status
is supposed to stay cheap enough that nobody replaces it with ls.
make status now reports the share over a trailing three passes with the
per-pass breakdown, keeps the lifetime figure labelled NOT the metric,
and prints the D2 exemption so the next reader does not re-derive the
standoff where the budget blocked its own repair. One pass would be a
coin flip: a meta pass reads 100%, a product pass 0%. Three is the
smallest window where the ratio means something and still moves.
First reading: 36% over the last three passes against 49% lifetime,
with CB-WP-0008 at 0%.
The first run reported $0.00 for every window. Transcript stamps are
UTC Z and git prints a local offset, so the string comparison put every
response before the first boundary. Both the fix and a self-test for it
are in; reverting the conversion turns four checks red.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0007 found three defects in how gates are designed rather than in
any one gate: the meta budget cannot see the pass it governs, it blocks
its own repair, and nothing retires any gate.
D1 budgets measure their own window. D2 a soft breach is a signal, and
repairing the instrument that reports a breach is always in budget — a
gate must never block its own remedy, which is the trap CB-RES-0005 §4
named for session shape and that got built anyway two tasks later. D3
every gate declares what would retire it and a date to argue it on. D4
loop work cashes out into something runnable in the pass that invents
it, from the measured finding that cost per response tracks distance
from a runnable check. D5 the tier table finally covers changes to the
loop's own operation — CB-RES-0005 §6 said a second instance should
trigger it, and this ADR is the second.
The workplan is meta and above the budget line on recorded maintainer
authorization, which is D2's first use.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
