The AM-1 coverage gate failed the build on GR-P05 being uncovered, which
is what showed the rule was in the offer layer rather than in validate.
A rule enforced only by the offer is enforced only for clients that ask
what is legal. The gate did not catch a bug, it caught a design error.
And the reported case was not the one reported. CB-WP-0018, CB-EV-0016
and the message to ground-game all described SOLVE offered on a
face-down Problem; validate already rejected face-down, so it never was.
Problem 1 is the Surface Problem, face-up from the deal, so the three
inert SOLVEs were the HAND case. The ruling covers both so nothing is
invalidated, but a ruling was requested on a wrong description -- the
second time in three passes that a premise reached ground-game
unchecked, after the '12 points available' that voided GR-E01.
Two of two. The pattern is not careless analysis; it is that a claim gets
SENT the moment it is interesting and checked afterwards. Unexecuted
verification, one step further out: not a belief acted on, but a belief
published. CB-WP-0022's reproduction rule would have caught both.
An earlier mutation run reported three survivors and was wrong -- the
replacement strings did not match, so nothing was mutated. It proved
nothing and looked like a result.
Also renames CB-WP-0022-T06B to T07; the hub flagged it as an
unregistered species.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0012. Stage 1, deliverable by deliverable:
relationship-graph visualization emitted and gated, NEVER SEEN
drag-to-propose evidenced end to end
debug inspector evidenced (CB-WP-0011)
hot-seat play evidenced here
Hot-seat was the one closest to being claimed on the strength of the code
path existing. SeatPolicy hands every human seat a handle on one shared
Server, so turn-taking "obviously" worked — and nothing drove more than
one seat until now. The property that matters is not that two turns
happen but that the same tab, asked twice, shows two different hands.
Mutating the projection to serve P1's view to every seat turns it red.
The stage stays open on ONE named blocker rather than a vague
reservation: no browser is available to this loop, so the visualization
is evidenced only as correctly emitted. Everything testable from here has
been tested. What remains is `cb-play --serve 0`, open the URL, confirm
the table reads and a drag works. INTENT carries that note now.
The self-quoting rule from CB-EV-0011 §4 is ADOPTED: an evidence file
quotes the previous pass's final cost and never its own. CB-WP-0013
reported itself at $5.78/34 mid-flight; final is $8.26/47, under by 43%.
Four for four, always low.
Meta budget 29% [OVER] soft 25%, driven by CB-WP-0013 in a trailing three
with two cheap product passes; it was an instrument repair, which
ADR-0006 D2 exempts.
SH-1 at 347,720 [HARD] against a 300,000 ceiling. Compaction is the
remedy and this session cannot do it for itself. CB-EV-0009's standing
prediction is now live and testable for the first time in three passes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
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>
The renderer moves out of the play loop into inspect.rs and grows from
24 to 42 of the 43 leaf paths a populated GroundView carries. What it
had been dropping was the whole DARVO state machine, the whole GROUND
practice, the scoring mode, Focus tokens, the discard pile, per-seat
protection, and every part of the outcome except the headline.
The load-bearing half is every_view_field_is_classified, which walks
the serialized view for leaf paths and requires each to be listed as
rendered (with a token the output must contain) or omitted (with a
reason). Paths rather than keys: 'problem' occurs under a DARVO target,
a GROUND choice and a Selection, and a key-set walk would let one of
the three vouch for the other two.
Four M-D1-MUT controls, each red for its stated reason. The
unclassified-field control fired for real on the first run --
players.*.hand, a field the gate's own author had missed.
Both remaining tasks were overtaken and are cancelled with pointers. T05's
control loop was answered by CB-EV-0008 §1 and §4, which measured the
windowed metric and the budget firing on real passes. T06 asked whether
there is a fourth way a number can fail to bind; there is, and CB-EV-0007
§3 recorded it — the meta budget, aggregated over a window that could not
move it, two tasks after the same defect was fixed for session shape. The
tier-taxonomy gap T06 also carried was closed by ADR-0006 D5.
A workplan left in_progress makes `make status` name a stale next task,
which it had been doing for two passes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tier S (structural S; chaos d4=1, no override; declaration 5 of 12).
Three items carried out of the last two passes: CB-WP-0007 left at 2/6
with both remaining tasks overtaken, GR-E03 with no scenario at all, and
CommitWindow's second failed second-use. CB-EV-0008 §4 also says the next
pass should be product, and this is how the meta share comes back down.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
When condensing Phase C I rewrote the task block from an earlier
truncated console line (774b1c8a...) and invented the remaining 28 hex
digits rather than looking them up. fix-consistency C-03 caught it:
'state_hub_task_id 774b1c8a... not found in DB'.
Real id fetched from the hub and substituted. Worth recording as its own
commit: this is a hand-typed identifier in a repo whose central finding
is that hand-typed values are worthless, and the only reason it did not
persist is that a gate compares the file against the database.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The hub's task status vocabulary is wait|todo|progress|done|cancel, so
'deferred' was rejected by fix-consistency. 'cancel' is the accurate one:
these task records are superseded and equivalents live in CB-WP-0006
T05-T07. The work is deferred, not abandoned, and the workplan says so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
fix-consistency appended state_hub_workstream_id rather than replacing
the empty one, leaving a duplicate YAML key.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Written back by fix-consistency: workstream and task UUIDs for the ten
CB-WP-0003 tasks, plus the regenerated WORK-RECORDS.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adopts both remediations from CB-EV-0001 §4 (maintainer decision).
Option A — serde_yaml is now optional behind cb-game-runtime's
`scenarios` feature. The scenario module, the ScenarioGame impl and the
string parsers behind it are cfg-gated; cb-sim opts in explicitly. Both
configurations compile and lint clean under -D warnings.
A trap worth recording: `default-features = false` on a *member*
dependency is silently ignored when the workspace dependency does not
specify it. The first attempt gated nothing while looking correct — the
build succeeded and cargo tree still showed all six YAML crates. Fixed
by setting it on the workspace dependency. This is the positive-control
failure mode in miniature: success was not evidence the change applied.
Retarget — AM-4 now measures third-party source under audit, split by
build configuration, replacing a crate count that was unreachable
without undoing K5/K7 and that does not compare across ecosystems.
Re-measured via the new `make dep-weight`, whose own positive control
refuses to report when any crate's source cannot be located:
shipped runtime 23 crates 246,250 lines target <=250,000 met
dev toolchain 29 crates 317,021 lines target <=350,000 met
own source 3,408 lines
Scenario tooling costs 70,771 lines a shipped game never compiles —
the split the single number was hiding.
Targets are set at current measurement plus headroom, so they bind on
future growth rather than retroactively passing what had failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AM-4: measured what each remediation option actually buys, rather than
leaving one recommendation unquantified. serde_yaml optional removes 6
crates, not 5 — ryu belongs to that group, since serde_json now uses
zmij for floats. Full ladder: -6 to 27, serde_json -4 more to 23,
inlining SHA-256 -8 to 19, inlining ChaCha12 -4 to 15. Only
reimplementing a primitive gets under 20, so the target is unreachable
without undoing K5/K7.
Also records that crate count compares badly across ecosystems, and
offers the alternative the count is a proxy for: 307,317 lines of
third-party source under audit against 3,398 of our own.
AM-12: corrected from "uncomputable" to measured. The refusal to
estimate was right; the claim that no instrument existed was wrong.
Session transcripts carry exact per-message usage including the cache
breakdown. This session cost $248.46 at Fable 5 rates, of which 53% is
cache reads — cost is driven by context size times turn count, not by
output volume. What is still missing is per-task attribution, since
nothing marks task boundaries in a transcript.
CB-WP-0002 makes cost measurable and attributable: survey the
instruments, decide the attribution model by ADR, spec metrics that
include cost composition rather than a bare total, build a collector
whose positive control refuses to emit unreconciled numbers, and prove
it by answering a question that could not be answered before.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
