4 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6be9fbc9af |
CB-WP-0026: collect the rulings -- ten answers that arrived and were never applied
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
ground-game ruled all ten U-items on 2026-08-03, every one CONFIRMED as the default clay-borg simulates, and confirmed five of six provisional scenarios. clay-borg never collected the answers: CB-RES-0007 reported "0 of 10 ruled" the same day, and CB-WP-0022 built the finding register two days later still recording them as `reported`. make design's first run is what noticed -- not a human, not the adversarial review that found four other things. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the opposite direction, and it appears nowhere in the declaration, survey, ADR or spec of the pass that was built entirely around the forward version. It is arguably worse: an unread message is visible as silence, while a collected-but-unapplied ruling looks exactly like work in progress. Ten rulings quoted into §Underdetermined (the three conditional ones verbatim -- U1's designer note, U2's End-only trigger, U8's consume-only-if-it-cancels). Five provisional flags lifted, replaced by ruled/ruled_by/ruled_note so the flag went and the provenance stayed. Register queue 9 -> 0. T02's control came back clean: make sim is 26 passed, 59 rules covered, nothing red. Had a scenario gone red it would have meant we described our own behaviour incorrectly to ground-game. I wrote two U-item mappings and both were wrong. gr-a04 -> U1 (it asserts consent is REQUIRED; U1 asks WHEN the target accepts) and gr-d05 -> U5 (it exercises the UNREJECTED Reverse; U5 is the rejected one). Both plausible from covers:, neither survived reading the description. Third and fourth instance of this defect; the first two reached ground-game. So encodes_u_item is now a declaration and design.py asserts the file names what it claims -- and that check's own first version grepped for mentions and went red when two files recorded why they do NOT encode U1 and U5. A mention is not a claim, which is exactly the looseness that let "six of the ten have provisional scenarios" stand. Two positive controls went red for the best possible reason, both broken the same way -- asserting against live repo data instead of constructing their condition. rule-coverage.py required at least one provisional item to EXIST; it now builds a fixture and reports the live count as a diagnostic, because there is no number of provisional items this project should have. design-baseline.py pinned "2 of 6" while recomputing one row from a live glob, so the dated snapshot was never a snapshot; frozen to its 2026-08-03 list and unwired from self-tests, since per ADR-0012 D8 it is no longer a reporting tool. ScenarioFile is deny_unknown_fields and refused the four new fields until declared -- correct: a corpus accepting unknown metadata would let a typo'd encodes_u_iem sit there claiming nothing. DEVIATION: ADR-0012 D2 said "no new file". GroundRules.md crossed the loadability limit, so the register moved to specs/FindingRegister.md. D2's substance holds -- one register, same machinery, nothing competing -- but the literal instruction did not, and it resolves an awkwardness D2 named itself. make all: exit 0. loop-lint clean. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| 561facce43 |
CB-WP-0022 T05/T06/T07: the register, and what its first run found
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
T05. tools/design.py, make design, and the register in GroundRules.md --
14 rows, no new file, because ADR-0012 D2 made §Underdetermined the
register rather than building one beside it.
Backfill was the test and it caught two things the ADR did not have.
First, a `role` column. The first report alarmed on U2 and was wrong to:
U2's scenario is green BECAUSE the provisional default it documents is
implemented, which says nothing about whether ground-game agrees. GR-E01's
was a counterexample that went green. Same colour, opposite meaning -- a
register that cannot tell them apart either alarms constantly or never.
Only a green counterexample alarms. Folded back into GameDesign §1.3.
Second, it contradicted the survey. CB-RES-0007 said "six of the ten
already have provisional scenarios." Measured -- grep -lE "\bU<n>\b" over
scenarios/ground -- exactly ONE U-item names itself. Five provisional
scenarios exist and four probably encode U-item defaults, but the mapping
is not written down, so it is not checkable. Same defect class as the
wrong premises, found inside the survey that proposed the fix. Now a
reported debt: open, lacking a reproduction: 9, target 0.
design.py carries the control design-baseline.py never had, asserted
directly: a row citing a nonexistent file must not count as reproduced,
using the exact path
|
|||
| 503966bce9 |
CB-WP-0021 T06: fix AM-7's measurement, not its floor
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
The row folded a 5,000-event log against a 100,000-event log and compared throughputs, which confounds 'does cost per event grow with history' (the property it claims) with 'does streaming a 20x longer Vec cost more per element' (a memory-hierarchy fact true of any program). It measured the second and reported it as the first: importing the edition enlarged the aggregate and the ratio fell to 0.845 with the state bounded. Corrected to time the SAME 5,000 events on a state at depth 0 and on a state at depth 100,000. Equal windows, equal event mix, so the only difference left is history depth. corrected: clean 1.004, mutated 0.589 (red) old: clean 0.845 (red on healthy code), mutated 0.751 It also runs in 8.5s instead of timing out: the first version re-walked the 100k prefix every repetition, 200M untimed folds per sample, which under the mutation never finished. A control that cannot be run is not a control. It now advances to depth once per sample and clones. Two of my own measurements here were wrong and both were caught by measuring again. A 2-minute timeout killed the shell line before its restoring cp ran, so three readings were taken on MUTATED code -- I diagnosed an event-mix confound that did not exist and 'fixed' it. The fix is kept on its merits; the justification was fiction. And the probe that proved state was bounded had checked four of eleven collections. make all exits 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
|||
| a86efba4c3 |
CB-WP-0022-T01: survey — how rule systems record the ambiguity they find
CB-RES-0007 plus a runnable baseline harness. Tier L invokes the runnable-baseline option; the external candidates are practices rather than software, so their rows are directional and cap at parity, and the row that CAN be run is our own. Measured: 6 findings across 11 files with no index, 2 of 6 (33%) with a runnable reproduction, U1-U10 raised 2026-07-30 and first READ 2026-08-03 -- 4 days, 0 of 10 ruled. The uncomfortable number is stated before the review can find it: the proposed 'no finding without its reproduction' rule would reject four of our six existing findings. The survey answers rather than routes around it -- none of the four is expensive to reproduce, so 33% is evidence nobody was ever asked for one. Magic corrected an assumption this pass was about to build on. Rulings are NOT authoritative -- they are 'reminder information with no actual weight or rules meaning' -- and the authoritative fix folds into the Oracle card text. So a finding closes when the SOURCE changes, not when an annotation is added, and the register must be a queue that empties rather than an archive that grows. That is now a constraint on the ADR's lifecycle. Model checkers supply the reproduction rule independently: a counterexample trace IS the finding. W3C's implementation-defined mark is the machinery we already have in provisional: scenarios and must reuse. The loop-lint gate caught the new tool with no --self-test; it has one, pinning the 2-of-6 baseline so a later edit cannot move it silently. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
