Tier-L survey plus the full review trail. v1 was REJECTED by adversarial
review with four blocking findings; this is v2, and the finding below is
the reviewer's as much as mine.
The root cause is neither v1's story ("coverage scope is too narrow" —
true but shallow) nor the reviewer's cheaper one ("the link check points
at one file" — true but catches 3 of 7). It is:
Every coverage instrument in this project counts NAMES. None counts
ASSERTIONS. M-D1-COV counts covers: tags; M-D1-LNK counts rule-ID
strings. Both answer "is this rule mentioned?" and neither answers
"does anything fail if this rule is violated?"
Four of seven defects found this pass are named in the source and inert,
so no name-based check finds them. This subsumes the oldest error class:
all five prior harness-does-nothing instances have the same shape.
Two are mutation-proven, because the reviewer set that bar for findings
they had only read:
AM-7 — folding a 100k-event log from fresh(999) instead of fresh(42),
an unrelated genesis state, leaves the test green. The hash reaches
only a println!; the sole assertion is on elapsed time. And the log is
built across games seeded 42,43,44... so it could not be asserted as
written. evidence/CB-EV-0001 reports "AM-7 replay met, 2,290x" —
unearned on the hash-identical clause. HDN instance #6.
K9 — making Snapshot::take discard its EventSeq and store 0, which
destroys the half of K9 that says "+ the EventId it includes", leaves
the test green. On the acceptance criterion GameKernel §2.4 is zero of
three, not two of three.
Also found: K10, K14, K18 named nowhere in source; AM-10 vacuous (a K6
determinism lint reported under a D4 leak row, over a cb-*-api crate that
does not exist); AM-11's conformance suite does not exist; AM-1b measured
and omitted from the evidence scoreboard.
All twelve challenge findings conceded, none defended on its facts. v1's
prediction was rejected as unfalsifiable AND already determined; the
replacement names its refuting outcome and is beatable in both
directions.
Chaos d4=1, no override. Declaration 1 of the 12-declaration window.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Review of where token-priced turns did work a deterministic tool could
do. Method: classify every turn in both transcripts by the tool calls it
made. The classifier is committed in tools/cb-cost.py and emitted by
`make cost-mix`, so the baseline is reproducible and the same command
can later falsify the predictions.
mech environment setup 84 turns $15.33
mech ad-hoc text patching 75 turns $13.86
git 37 turns $13.85
mech hub task status 25 turns $ 7.46
mech orientation / inspect 49 turns $ 6.87
hub other 32 turns $ 6.22
mech ad-hoc transcript 39 turns $ 4.56
mech workplan status edit 21 turns $ 4.06
MECHANICAL (dedup) 290 turns $51.26 = 38% of pass
Largest category is `cd` and `export PATH` -- pure friction, and
dep-weight.py already patched it at the leaf, which is evidence it was
noticed and fixed in the wrong place. Second is heredocs string-patching
markdown, which is also the mechanism behind duplicated-fact drift, the
error class InnerLoop v1.2 names and cannot gate.
Explicitly NOT automated: git (37 turns, $13.85) is mostly commit
message authorship -- the highest-output turns in the corpus and the
project's reasoning record. Automating it would save money and destroy
what makes corrections cheap.
CB-WP-0004 implements five candidates and predicts $33-41 recovery
(25-30%), below the 38% measured share on purpose: some inspection and
patching is genuinely exploratory.
The control loop is the deliverable, not a formality. T05 tests three
things and must report all: did mechanical turns disappear, did they
RELOCATE into prose, and did quality hold. If mechanical turns fall and
prose rises by as much, the saving is zero and that is the result to
publish.
Also a self-indictment worth recording: every hub update_task_status in
this project carried hand-typed token estimates, in a repo whose central
finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. T02 fixes it by
reading measured values from cb-cost.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
- InnerLoop definition-of-done gains a cost row: M-D2-CST may no longer
be recorded uncomputable, and composition must be reported, not only a
total.
- InnerLoop Step 5 gains the --self-test contract: every tool that
reports a number exposes one, and it runs before the number does.
Rationale attached, because the case that motivated it is the one
review cannot catch — survey and reviewer both verified the same large
sample and both missed the small one.
- make cost / cost-test / cost-pin on the one command surface; cost-test
in `make all` and in CI.
- Hub now holds the measured figure for CB-WP-0001: 80.6M in / 323.6k
out against the 401,100 it previously estimated, low by ~200x. The
event states plainly that the hub schema cannot represent the 88% of
cost that is cache, and names `make cost-pin` as the authority.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AC-1 $93.32 ($92.21 main + $1.11 subagent), residual $0.000000. No
unmeasured rows. Composition: 88.0% cache, 11.9% output, 249:1 context
re-read to text written.
The question that could not be answered before: what /compact costs.
The transcript records it directly — 542,991 -> 19,974 tokens, a 27x
reduction. Cost per turn fell from $0.457 (136 turns before) to $0.149
(202 turns after). The 202 post-compact turns cost less than half the
136 before them.
This qualifies CB-WP-0003 T04: sessions are bounded-quadratic, not
quadratic. Cost grows with context between compactions and resets at
each one, so the failure mode is a long UNCOMPACTED session. Whether a
fresh session beats a compaction is now measurable, and T04 should
measure it before prescribing one task per session.
Stale $0.66/$92.87 targets updated across survey and workplan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adversarial review per InnerLoop Step 2 — separate agent, given only the
survey, one round. Challenge and response in history/.
The arithmetic held: every pinned figure and the whole three-method
correction table reproduced to the cent under ~20 independent spot
checks. The hand-written markdown tables did not. Three blocking
defects:
- the dedup positive-control table failed its own checksum (group
sizes summed to 348 groups / 663 lines, not 346 / 657; multi-line
groups are 206, not 208) — the worst place for a slip, since that
table is the sole evidence for the load-bearing dedup assumption
- the multi-model table was labelled "deduped" while holding per-line
counts, three lines below the paragraph condemning per-line counts
- the $92.21 acceptance target excluded the subagent tree, which ran
INSIDE the pin window. A collector correctly implementing the
survey's own blind-spot finding would have failed the benchmark.
Target is now $92.87, stated as its two components.
Folded in, each re-derived before conceding:
- attribution must key on sessionId, not wall-clock: two sessions
overlap 4h13m on this repo carrying ~$12 (one of them was this
workplan's own background job)
- only 14 of 33 commits name a task; the other 19 hold 33% of cost
- cache writes bill per TTL — pricing the aggregate at 1h inflates
the subagent by 43%
- the "~87% cache" figure matched nothing; 64.6% of cost is cache
read, 88.4% is all cache
- fable is 35% of calls and 60% of dollars; opus is the inverse
Review cost ~$0.60 against a $92 pass, the second consecutive round
where that trade found something material. Evidence for CB-WP-0003 T03.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tier L (structural L, chaos d10=2). Every candidate exercised locally
against the CB-WP-0001 transcript rather than cited.
Verdict: session transcript JSONL is the only exact instrument; git
commits supply the attribution index it lacks; the State Hub is a
durable sink whose schema cannot express cache tokens at all; the
status bar and billing API are eliminated on availability.
Three errors found in this workplan's own Purpose section, all
overstating cost:
- one API response is written as up to six JSONL lines, each
repeating the same usage object (657 lines, 346 responses)
- a multi-model session was priced entirely at Fable 5 rates,
violating a per-model rule MetricsAndScenarios §1a already had
- the transcript is a live file, so an unpinned total is not
repeatable (346 -> 356 responses between two runs minutes apart)
CB-WP-0001 pinned at fc76445: $92.21, not $248.46. The qualitative
finding sharpens rather than weakens — 88.4% of spend is cache, at
256:1 cache-read to output tokens.
Neither error was of the harness-does-nothing class the positive
control was written for; both sums ran over real data. What caught
them was re-deriving a number instead of quoting it. Raised for T07
and for CB-WP-0003 T01.
Also measured: the one subagent (adversarial review) cost $0.66 and is
invisible to a collector reading only the main transcript.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
