CB-EV-0010. The pass's own verdict on the tier it ran at.
Full-weight review withdrew the capability port the declaration was made
to build. A tier-S pass has no step 2 and would have shipped it, and
stage 2 would have found it unimplementable — which is what CommitWindow
is already on record in this repo for doing.
Two corrections of the survey's own numbers, compounding:
AM-4a headroom 3,750 claimed -> 92,798 measured (25x)
cheapest windowed 480,501 claimed -> 140,079 measured (3.4x)
headline ratio 128x -> 1.5x (85x)
The prediction from CB-EV-0009 §4 held: meta budget reads 0%, published
in advance and unfalsified.
A correction that is now a pattern: CB-EV-0009 reported CB-WP-0011 at
45 responses / $4.23 / 0.094; final is 71 / $7.02 / 0.099. Still the
cheapest pass, so the conclusion stands. But that is the second
consecutive evidence file to report its own pass's cost low — a pass
cannot measure its own cost, and one quoting its own is quoting a floor.
First priced tier comparison on a single subject: 0.123 $/response at L
against 0.099 at S — 24% more, for a pass that found the two errors
above. On one data point, step 2 is cheap.
Not shipped, and said plainly: the emitted JavaScript has never been
executed. The socket loop is tested end to end with synthetic HTTP and
the page is asserted against as a parsed document, but no browser engine
has run it. INTENT stage 1 therefore stays open even though all four of
its named deliverables now exist.
SH-3 reads 0.0% for a sixth consecutive pass and remains the oldest
unargued number in the project.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five decisions:
1. cb-render-html emits HTML/SVG/JS; the browser draws it. Rejected on
measured marginal cost: egui+eframe 2,782,849; wgpu+winit 1,741,979;
ratatui 1,067,013; macroquad 480,501; sdl2 191,973; fltk 140,079.
The reason is allocation, not affordability — fltk is only 1.5x the
corrected headroom, but wgpu is 12x fltk, unavoidable, and named by
INTENT for stage 2. Stage 1 should not buy windowing stage 2 discards.
2. No cb-render-api and no cb-render-null. A port designed against one
document-emitting implementation acquires a document's shape and
stage 2 rewrites it. INTENT's second-use rule beats the blueprint's
port pattern on timing. cb-render-html ships against Project.
3. AM-4 counts third-party code the project causes to be ACQUIRED, not
runtimes the user already has. Browsers are not counted; sdl2 and
fltk are counted at MORE than their Rust bindings. The rule costs
more than it saves, which is the only reason to trust it here.
4. AM-4a's proc-macro defect (89,048 lines, 36.2%) is filed separately,
not bundled with the request it unblocks.
5. Six controls bind the implementation, including a mutation-backed
test that a token-less loopback request is refused, a bar on JS
constructing commands, and a coverage gate asserting over the parsed
emitted document rather than the Rust that emits it.
Reserved for the maintainer: AM-4a exceeds INTENT stage 2 by 7x and
cannot survive it; and whether decision 3's rule is the right one.
The hard gate held — no render implementation code before this commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Four of six challenges conceded; the survey's two main arguments are
replaced rather than clarified.
C1 The survey concluded the sub-100k region was empty without ever
measuring it. It is not empty: tiny-skia fits at 83,956, and the
real windowed floor is fltk at 140,079 — 1.5x corrected headroom,
not 128x. "Two orders of magnitude" is withdrawn.
C1b Following that concession: wgpu+winit is 1,741,979 marginal lines
against a 250,000 target. AM-4a is incompatible with INTENT stage 2
by 7x, and has been since both were written. Raised for the
maintainer; deliberately not decided by this pass.
C2 "Marginal cost zero" was scored on an axis chosen to produce zero,
and the same relocation already flattered sdl2 and fltk in the
survey's own table. One acquisition rule now covers all three, and
it raises two candidates' cost rather than lowering the winner's.
C3 The survey contradicted itself on the second-use rule. cb-render-api
and cb-render-null are withdrawn; cb-render-html ships against the
existing Project trait, and the port waits for stage 2's second use.
C6 The candidate measurements did carry a positive control. The C1
batch did not — it copied dep-weight.py's measurement function
without its guards — and was re-measured under them before being
cited. Figures reproduced unchanged. The HTML row is relabelled
0 by construction, not by measurement.
C4/C5 become six controls binding on ADR-0007.
The recommendation stands. The reasoning that reached it does not.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured with dep-weight.py's own method so the numbers subtract.
Marginal cost against the 23-crate base graph, not headline size:
egui+eframe 2,782,849 742x headroom
wgpu+winit 1,741,979 465x
softbuffer+tiny-skia 1,147,081 306x
ratatui+crossterm 1,067,013 285x
macroquad 480,501 128x
HTML/SVG emission 0 0x
ratatui costing more than macroquad is the surprise: rustix pulls
linux-raw-sys at 479,901 lines.
Separately, AM-4a counts proc-macro crates that never reach a binary:
89,048 lines, 36.2% of the shipped-runtime figure, syn alone 66,916.
Real headroom is 92,798, not the 3,750 this repo has been citing.
The recommendation is unchanged by that correction — macroquad is 5.2x
over even at 92,798 — which is the only condition under which a survey
may propose correcting a number in its own favour. The metric fix is
filed separately, not bundled with the decision it unblocks.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Declaration 7 of 12. Structural tier L (INTENT stage 1 creates a
capability port); d4 = 1, so no override — the pass runs at full
weight, which is the tier CB-WP-0011's roll deleted.
The leading constraint is AM-4a's 3,750 lines of headroom against
candidate implementations that are all five to six figures. T01 is
required to measure rather than estimate, and to audit the instrument
before recommending any change to the target it reports.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
