CB-EV-0011. Three instruments were wrong; the pass found the third
defect itself and committed the fourth.
The rule this pass should leave behind: an evidence file quotes the
PREVIOUS pass's final cost, not its own. Three for three, all low by a
strikingly consistent ~2/3:
CB-WP-0009 $6.73 reported -> $11.31 final
CB-WP-0011 $4.23 reported -> $7.02 final
CB-WP-0012 $8.82 reported -> $14.52 final
And this time it changed a conclusion. CB-EV-0010 reported the first
priced tier comparison as "0.123 at L against 0.099 at S — 24% more".
The final figures are 0.150 against 0.099 — 51% more. Tier L costs twice
what that comparison claimed. It still deleted a port that would have
been rewritten and found errors of 25x and 85x, so it still looks worth
it, but the price doubled and the file that made the argument could not
have known.
Also closed rather than deferred again: cb-play's "third mode" never
arrived. --serve is a play flag selecting which Policy fills a human
seat; the binary still has two modes, and CB-EV-0010 §6 was wrong.
Carried for two passes, resolved, stopped.
Recorded as a near-miss: an instrument reading that looked impossible
(53 tool calls in 53 responses) turned out to be correct. One
independent re-derivation before writing anything stopped a false
accusation — in the pass whose whole subject is instruments reporting
things that are not so.
gate-review: 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted. Every gate in the registry has
a caught entry for the first time.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured.
--shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while
writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds
one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2.
SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%.
cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints
"insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true
rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at
n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate
at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so.
The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a
per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since
the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window
makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite.
Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason —
including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is
printed as a measured zero.
SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures
(1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the
ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen
0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six
passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Declaration 8 of 12. Structural tier M (changes how the loop constrains
its own operation — a budget instrument and a gate floor); d4 = 3, no
override. Meta budget reads 0% of the trailing three, so this is in
budget without the ADR-0006 D2 repair exemption.
The SH-3 half is larger than CB-WP-0012 filed it as. "SH-3 has read
0.0% for six consecutive passes" is an artifact: --shape-budget measures
the window since the last commit, and it is read while writing the
evidence file, immediately after a commit, when that window holds one or
two responses. SH-1 and SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2;
SH-3 is a rate, and at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%.
Measured over real per-pass windows it is 1.1%-6.3%, not 0.0%. Which
exposes what the artifact hid: the pinned historical rate is 7.8%-8.6%,
so batching has got WORSE, and a metric stuck at a constant could not
have shown it.
That is the ninth recorded instance of the trusted-arithmetic class, and
the second one in this same metric — SessionShape.md §4 already records
"0 of 330 tool calls were batched" as the eighth.
Also owed: AM-4a counts proc-macro crates that never reach a binary
(89,048 lines, 36.2%). The task is explicit that the target must move
down with the instrument, or the pass must argue why 89,048 lines of
unearned headroom are legitimate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
