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>
