Commit graph

4 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
53c460c992 CB-WP-0004 T04: fact registry and make facts-check — DFD gets a gate
Duplicated-fact drift is the fourth error class and the only one with no
executable rule. No positive control catches it (both copies are
internally consistent) and re-derivation does not either (the copy
reproduces whatever it was copied from). It is caught only by reading a
copy against its source, which nothing in the loop required.

facts.toml holds 15 facts and is GENERATED by `make facts-gen` from
cb-cost, dep-weight and rule-coverage. The trap this task named — a
hand-maintained registry that becomes another drifting copy — is closed
by facts-check re-running the instruments and failing when the committed
registry disagrees with them. A stale registry cannot certify stale
artifacts.

An artifact quoting a fact tags it: **$93.15** <!-- fact --> with the key.
17 occurrences across 5 artifacts are now checked.

Falsified before being believed: changing CostAccounting.md line 158 from
$93.15 to $92.87 — the exact historical drift — produced exit 1 naming
the file, the line and the expected value. Tested against the class it
exists to catch, on a real artifact, not only in its self-test.

It then caught a live tag inside its own documentation example in
InnerLoop.md within the hour. Third time a gate has failed on its own
pass's work.

What it does not close is stated rather than implied: 22 untagged literal
copies remain and are reported, not failed. Tagging is opt-in, a number
can legitimately recur, and a gate that fires on coincidence gets routed
around. Naming the uncovered surface beats claiming the class is closed.

InnerLoop single-source-of-fact moves from prose to executable — v1.3.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 10:24:39 +02:00
0c1eb9ecba ADR-0004: ratify AM-4a and AM-4b (maintainer decision)
Discharges the open item T07 raised. Values unchanged at 250,000 and
350,000; what was missing was a reviewed decision behind them, since
they had been set by the implementer in the commit that measured them
and that also changed the feature gating being measured.

The ADR supplies the argument T07's test requires -- why the targets
bind on FUTURE work rather than merely passing present work:

  AM-4a leaves 3,750 lines of headroom (1.5%), about one small crate,
  so any new shipped-runtime dependency breaches it almost immediately.
  That is intended: the shipped runtime should be effectively frozen.

  AM-4b leaves 32,979 lines (10.4%), deliberately looser -- dev tooling
  should absorb one moderate dependency without a spec change, not two.

  Both are ceilings on a quantity that only grows by choice. Nothing
  drifts across them; only adding a dependency does.

Falsification condition stated: if a later pass raises AM-4a to
accommodate a dependency it wants, that is the failure the ceiling
exists to catch, and the answer is an ADR arguing for the dependency.

First ADR written under the correction/retarget test; sets the shape.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 09:45:35 +02:00
c3e6e72ab2 T02: ADR-0003 — transcript as instrument, commit intervals as attribution
Instrument: session transcript JSONL, deduped by requestId, priced per
model and per cache TTL. Hub rejected as a source (no cache fields, ~100%
error on the same work), kept as sink. Status bar and billing API
rejected on availability.

Attribution: (prev_commit, this_commit] ending-at-commit, scoped by
sessionId. Explicit session markers rejected because they depend on an
agent remembering a step — the exact failure this workplan exists to fix.
Hub status transitions rejected as an after-the-fact time index.

Stated honestly: we buy accuracy with specification complexity, and D1
gets worse. That trade is only right because the alternative on offer was
not a simpler correct number but one wrong by two orders of magnitude.

Seven failure modes recorded up front, each becoming a T04 test — most
importantly that dedup fails in the under-reporting direction, so the
invariant is asserted at runtime rather than trusted.

Gate satisfied: T04 may now write collector code.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-31 08:44:27 +02:00
53c1b18ec1 T04: adversarial review round + survey corrections + ADR-0002 (reimplement, assimilate patterns) 2026-07-31 01:25:02 +02:00