Nothing in the workspace compared any number to 100,000 events/s while
the evidence file reported "AM-6 | met, 16.5x". Now a test does — a test,
not a bench, because Criterion reports throughput and asserts nothing,
which is why this row measured nothing for six passes.
Measured on bnt-lap001: 341,280 ev/s in debug (3.4x the target), ~2.4-3.1M
in release. The spec target holds even in an unoptimized build, so the
gate needs no cfg split and runs in the ordinary `make test`.
The trap this task named — loosening a flaky timing assertion until it
never fires — is avoided by construction. The threshold is the spec value,
untouched; the constant says lowering it requires an ADR; and the failure
message repeats that, states measured headroom, and names reference
figures, so an agent hitting a red AM-6 is told not to tune it in the
place they are actually reading. Robustness comes from best-of-N, not from
a lower bar: a throughput floor asks whether the machine is capable, so
transient load should not fail the build.
Two positive controls in the test: a run that applied fewer than 50,000
events, or measured zero elapsed time, fails rather than scoring as
infinite throughput.
Verified by a PROPERTY mutation — 4,000 black_box iterations injected into
GroundState::fold, the hot path — not a threshold tweak, which would only
prove the comparison runs.
And the FA class found last pass is now gated. mutation-check rows gained
an `expect` field: the mutant's output must contain the row's stated
failure string or the verdict is WRONG-REASON, not red. Without it a
mutation that merely failed to compile would credit its row with an
assertion it does not have. Verified by pointing expect at a string the
verifier never prints and watching the verdict flip. This is remedy (2)
from the CB-WP-0005 retrospective, built a task earlier than planned
because the class it guards is the newest and most dangerous.
M-D1-MUT: 4 -> 5 of 14.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Workplan status proposed -> in_progress, T01 (assert the AM-6 throughput
target) todo -> progress. Local files are source of truth; the hub
reflects them after sync.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
loop-lint failed at 406 lines, third time this file has bumped the ~400
limit. Trimming again would have been the wrong fix: the T02 delivery note
duplicated CB-EV-0004 Test 2 almost verbatim, which is a duplicated fact
in the workplan that most recently added a duplicated-fact gate.
The workplan now holds task definitions and short outcomes; the evidence
file holds the analysis. 395 lines.
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>
T07 and T08 shipped in one commit, so CA-08 attributed the substantive
work of both to T07 and left T08 with no bucket. task-done refused to
close it rather than invent a number, which is the contract working as
designed. Recorded in the workplan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T07 — CB-EV-0004. 70 responses, $16.03.
Test 1 MET: 1 spec -> 2, 58 rules -> 76, 1 source file -> 10, and the new
denominator came in at 83% naming K10/K14/K18. The stated failure mode — a
widened denominator reporting the same percentage — did not occur.
Test 2 UNMET: M-D1-MUT 4 of 14 against >=10, and wrong about what as well
as how much. The diagnosis was three absent kernel rules; the measurement
found eight rows with no instrument at all.
Test 3: quality held, and widening surfaced far more than the seven known
defects — six further uninstrumented rows, HDN #7 (rule-coverage's
self-test green while the tool was broken), a stale $248.46 invisible to
facts-check because it was untagged, and a fifth error class.
The clean test CB-WP-0004 was owed is now run, on a pass that used the
tools without building them. The two categories whose tools removed the
manual path are at 0 turns two passes on; the two that merely offered a
better option are now the entire mechanical cost of a pass. Absolute
mechanical cost fell $51.76 -> $6.13. The mechanism holds.
Reported because nothing else would: SH-3 batching is 0.0% this pass — 67
tool calls across 67 responses — against a 20% target, and mean context
315,170 against 200,000. SessionShape has stated these since CB-WP-0003
and none has ever been enforced.
T08 — the retrospective answers its question: yes, a weak mutation is the
new grep, and it is worse, because it fails in the opposite direction.
mutation-check's first run produced two SURVIVED verdicts and both were
the author's own no-op mutations.
The fifth error class: false accusation. HDN, TA, SSB and DFD all
under-report — a real problem passes. FA over-reports: it publishes the
claim that working code is broken, sends the next pass to fix something
that is not broken, and is more credible than the truth because it arrives
with a measurement attached. Thirteen instances, five classes, six passes,
and the newest class is one that hardening created.
One correction to CB-WP-0004 T06: "a gate only pays if it removes the
manual path" is a predictor of whether a gate saves money, not a criterion
for whether it is worth having. mutation-check fails that test and
produced the most valuable findings of the pass.
InnerLoop v1.4: where a claim rests on numbers, the adversarial reviewer
must read the assertion behind each quoted number and mutate it.
Re-running the command that prints a number is not verification of that
number. Second verification step to inherit the author's blindness; both
fixes replace re-derivation with adversarial execution.
CB-WP-0005 status -> done, 5 of 8 tasks, 3 cancelled into CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
loop-lint failed: CB-WP-0005 was 401 lines against a ~400 limit, one over,
after the status-vocabulary note. Pushed before checking — my error; the
gate caught it on the next run.
The fix is not a trim. The gate exposed a circular reference I had
created: CB-WP-0005's cancelled tasks held the full analysis while
CB-WP-0006 pointed back at them for detail, so the live workplan deferred
to a cancelled one. The analysis now lives in CB-WP-0006 Phase B next to
the work, and CB-WP-0005 keeps a forward pointer per task. One copy,
single source of fact, and the reference points forward.
CB-WP-0006 T05 and T06 gain the detail that moved: K9's mutation proof and
what its acceptance property actually is, K11's detection clause and
budget attribution, and the D2 correction the reviewer forced — the bundle
is not "a directory of four files" but a change to the runner's data flow,
because scenario.rs creates an EventLog, appends to it and never reads it.
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>
Scoped to what CB-WP-0005 T02 measured rather than what CB-RES-0004
predicted. The survey diagnosed three absent kernel rules; M-D1-MUT found
that 8 of 14 acceptance rows have no instrument behind them at all.
Phase A instruments the unmeasured rows, starting with AM-6 — nothing in
the workspace compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the project's
headline throughput claim, reported as "met, 16.5x". Phase B carries the
kernel work deferred unstarted from CB-WP-0005 Phase C. That order is the
point: the previous pass built a fix before its instrument existed and
the instrument then contradicted the fix's premise.
T01 names its own trap up front: a timing assertion in CI is flaky by
nature and the usual response is to loosen it until it never fires, which
would reproduce exactly the defect being fixed. The threshold is pinned
far below measured, states its headroom in the failure message, and
loosening requires an ADR.
T04 notes an incentive worth blocking early: ADR-0005 predicts own-source
growth from Phase B, so AM-4c will move against us. Setting its threshold
after seeing that movement is the retarget InnerLoop §Step 4 forbids, so
it is set before Phase B or not at all.
T09 asks the question this pass is positioned to answer: M-D1-MUT does
not remove a manual path — writing a weak mutation is exactly as easy as
writing a strong one and the harness cannot tell them apart. CB-WP-0005
produced two no-op mutations on its first attempt, so the failure mode is
demonstrated. And it fails in the dangerous direction: a weak mutation
does not miss a defect, it indicts working code.
CB-WP-0005 T04-T06 are marked deferred rather than deleted, with their
analysis intact, so the trail from prediction to contradiction to re-plan
stays readable.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Four verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001 corrected in place with a dated
note, per ADR-0005 §4: AM-7 replay split (timing met, hash-identical
withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as written and restated as AM-10' (the K6
determinism lint it actually measured), AM-11 downgraded to unmet, and
AM-1b added to the scoreboard it was missing from.
The scoreboard gains an Enforced column carrying M-D1-MUT, because a row
can be measured and still enforce nothing and the table had no way to say
so. AM-6 now reads "met, 16.5x" alongside "not enforced — nothing
compares any number to 100,000".
A fifth correction surfaced that ADR-0005 did not list: AM-12 still read
$248.46, the figure CB-WP-0002 disproved and corrected to $93.15 four
workplans ago. It was stale in the evidence file ever since — untagged,
and therefore invisible to facts-check. Now tagged. A duplicated-fact
instance that survived the gate built to catch duplicated facts, because
that gate only checks copies that opted in. Recorded for T07.
GameKernel §5 carries the AM-10 withdrawal and AM-11 downgrade inline so
a reader of the spec cannot reach the old claim.
Phase C is deferred before starting, per the stop condition T02 wrote and
the maintainer's decision. It is scoped to five rules; the measurement
says eight acceptance rows have no instrument at all. Building it as
written would proceed on a diagnosis the instrument had just
contradicted. T04-T06 stay in the file with their analysis intact and
move to CB-WP-0006.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
For each acceptance row in GameKernel §5, invert the property and require
the verifying command to go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with the
denominator changed from source lines to acceptance rows.
M-D1-MUT: 4/14 rows enforced
PARTIAL 2 (AM-7, AM-8 — some clauses live, some inert)
unmutatable 8 (no property to invert, reason stated per row)
SURVIVED 0
Two corrections to our own numbers. There are 14 rows, not the twelve
ADR-0005 and CB-WP-0005 both asserted — AM-4 splits into a/b/c. And the
prediction of 9-of-12 (75%) becomes >=10 of 14; measured 4 (29%), badly
unmet. No target moved in this commit.
The second correction matters more. My first run reported two SURVIVED
rows and both were my own no-op mutations: `pub struct NullRng;` ->
`pub struct NullRng {}` is semantically identical, and renaming
max_age_days does nothing because CA-17 reads it with a default of 90.
Both would have been published as "this row asserts nothing" — a false
accusation against code that is fine. Replaced with real inversions (a
per-construction counter in the ChaCha seed; reverting AC-9's output
resolution to the first-wins bug it was fixed for), after which both go
red. T08 asks whether writing a weak mutation is the new grep. It is,
demonstrably, on the first attempt.
The finding is larger than the workplan assumed. 8 of 14 rows are
unmutatable — AM-2, AM-3, AM-4c, AM-5, AM-6, AM-9, AM-10, AM-11 have no
instrument at all. AM-6 is the sharpest: nothing in the workspace
compares any number to 100,000 events/s, the headline throughput claim.
The problem is not three unimplemented rules, it is that more than half
the acceptance table has nothing behind it.
Harness controls: a stale find-string reports HARNESS-BROKEN rather than
scoring the baseline as the mutant; a red baseline reports inconclusive
rather than red; the tree is restored in a finally and the restoration is
verified. Not in `make all` — it rebuilds the workspace once per row.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
AGGREGATE becomes a list of source roots and rule patterns become
per-spec, so the link runs over every numbered spec x every crate rather
than GroundRules.md x games/ground/src/lib.rs.
The prediction held on the first run:
AM-1b kernel spec->code link: 15/18 (83%) across 10 source files
unlinked: K10 K14 K18
Kernel rules are link-only by design, and the output says so: they are
kernel invariants with no aggregate, setup preset or command vocabulary,
so scenarios/kernel/*.yaml with covers: [K11] would be a tag in a
directory the runner cannot dispatch. Claiming scenario coverage for them
is the inflation this gate exists to prevent.
Per ADR-0005 §5 the kernel arm reports without feeding the exit code
until 2026-08-31, then binds — the date in the tool, not in prose, with
days remaining printed every run, because open-ended "gate it later" is
how AM-4's targets went unratified for four workplans. The self-test
asserts the gate returns 0 before that date and 2 after.
The zero-rules positive control is replicated on the new denominator: a
kernel regex that stops matching aborts rather than printing 0/0 as
though it were 100%.
The self-test passed while the tool was completely broken. A print(
inside say() became say(), so every real `make coverage` died with
RecursionError while --self-test reported all-ok — it only ever called
kernel_arm(quiet=True) and never executed the reporting path. The control
named the behaviour and did not assert it, which is precisely what this
workplan is about. Fixed by exercising the loud path and asserting it
prints, then verified by re-breaking say() and confirming both new checks
go red. Seventh instance of the harness-does-nothing shape, in the tool
written to find that shape.
Also caught by its own gate: a self-test label that printed "0 K-ids"
beside a passing ">5" assertion, because the detail string rebuilt the
pattern with different escaping. A label that contradicts its own check
is worse than no label.
k_rules, k_linked and k_unlinked are registered facts under facts-check.
A limit of that checker is recorded rather than patched: it is
line-based, so a tagged value that prose-wraps fails.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Decides the response to CB-RES-0004 and its adversarial review.
Decision 1 — a third coverage metric, M-D1-MUT: one mutation per
acceptance row, and the suite must go red. adapted:mutation-testing, with
the denominator deliberately changed from source lines to acceptance
rows, because the failure mode here is not an untested branch but a
headline number backed by nothing. A row for which no mutation can be
written is recorded unmutatable WITH THE REASON and counts against the
metric — a row nobody can invert asserts nothing.
Decision 2 — reimplement the log framing rather than assimilate it. This
is the deliberate exception to "own the semantics, assimilate the
implementation": that rule exists so we do not reimplement HARD things.
SHA-256 and ChaCha cost 12 crates and are kept. A length prefix is not in
that category. Budget attribution corrected per the review: the durable
log is shipped runtime (AM-4a, 1.5% headroom), the bundle writer is
dev-only behind the scenarios feature (AM-4b, 9.4%). The survey wanted it
both ways without saying so.
Decision 3 — a LogStore port with a real shared conformance suite, and
the same shape retro-fitted to KernelRng. M-D4-SWAP is a bool over "the
same conformance suite" and no suite exists, so AM-11 was never earned.
Decision 4 — correct three committed verdicts in evidence/CB-EV-0001:
AM-7 split (timing met, hash-identical withdrawn), AM-10 withdrawn as
written (no cb-*-api crate; a K6 determinism lint was reported under a D4
leak row), AM-11 downgraded to unmet. AM-1b is added to the scoreboard it
was missing from while the flattering half of the same command's output
was carried.
Decision 5 — widen the name check over every numbered spec and every
crate, reporting outside the exit code until 2026-08-31, with the date in
the tool rather than in prose. Open-ended "gate it later" is how AM-4's
targets went unratified for four workplans.
Decision 6 — replay is proven by re-execution in a fresh process, with
the reviewer's four controls adopted verbatim, including the two I had
not thought of: truncate-by-one-byte and mutated-seed.
Stated worse, not only better: own source grows and AM-4c moves against
us; CI gets slower by one rebuild per acceptance row. Both accepted — the
alternative is a smaller, faster codebase whose acceptance numbers mean
nothing.
CB-WP-0005 executes it in 8 tasks across four phases. The M-D1-MUT
prediction is 9 of 12 and is beatable in both directions: 12 of 12
refutes CB-RES-0004 outright, 3 of 12 means the pass is under-scoped and
must stop and re-plan rather than proceed to Phase C.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
The question was whether converting agent work to deterministic tooling
recovers capacity or the work reappears elsewhere. Neither, cleanly:
tooling recovers capacity where it removes the possibility of doing the
work by hand, and recovers nothing where it merely offers a better
option.
Sorting the five candidates by that test reproduces the results exactly.
env-setup and task-done left no manual path — env-test fails the build if
the friction returns, and task-done refuses to emit an estimate, so the
old way means knowingly writing fiction. Both met. facts-check and
`make status` left grep and heredocs one keystroke away. Both missed.
This is the principle ADR-0003 already used to reject explicit session
markers — nothing that depends on discipline gets to be the primary
index. It governs tooling economics too, and CB-RES-0003 did not apply
it.
Stated confidence sorted the extremes and said nothing in the middle,
where every judgement call lives: both high met, both medium missed, and
the single low also met, so it was miscalibrated at that end too. Future
reviews state the mechanism instead — after this fix, is the manual path
impossible, absurd, or merely inferior? — and only the first two may
carry a cost prediction.
The confound is symmetric and does not explain the split: building
repo.py and task-done.py also required inspection and patching, and those
categories still went to zero. It inflates the size of the miss, not its
location.
The most valuable output is not the 6 points of 38 recovered. It is that
the loop made a falsifiable quantitative forecast, was wrong by 4-5x, and
could say exactly which parts were wrong and why.
CB-WP-0004 status -> done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
cb-cost gains --since, so the baseline (--pin 578dcbe, 662 responses,
$135.60) and this pass (--since 578dcbe, 83 responses, $7.82) are two
disjoint windows over the same transcripts. Every verdict is on share of
pass, since the windows differ 17x in size.
Test 1 — did mechanical turns disappear? Partly. Mechanical share fell
38.2% -> 32.4%. Six points against a predicted 25-30; reported unmet, and
no target was moved in this commit.
environment setup 11.5% -> 0.6% (85 turns -> 1) met, decisively
hub + workplan 8.5% -> 0.0% (46 turns -> 0) met
text patching 10.4% -> 9.6% not met
orientation 5.1% -> 21.2% not met, worse
The confound is stated before any defence of the numbers: this is the
pass that built the tools, and the two categories that missed are exactly
the two whose tools were under construction. The clean test is the next
pass, and it is carried forward rather than waived.
Test 2 — did the work relocate? Not into prose. Output tokens per
response fell 896 -> 681. Output's rising share of cost is a shrinking
denominator, not more writing. Cost per response halved and the evidence
refuses to claim it: that is compaction (mean context 232,982 ->
117,822), and attributing it to tooling would repeat CB-WP-0002's
original error in a new direction.
Test 3 — did quality hold? Yes, recorded as explicit judgment. make all
green with two gates that did not exist before, and four findings
surfaced this pass, three caught by controls written this pass — one of
them a 5.2x attribution error that would have reached the hub as a
measured number.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
49 turns and $6.87 per CB-RES-0003 went to grep/ls/wc answering "what is
the state of this repo". tools/status.py answers it in 22 lines: commit
and working-tree state, every workplan with task counts, the next todo
task, spend since the last commit against CB-01/CB-02, and the three fast
gates.
Two constraints are deliberate. It does not build — a status command that
takes two minutes gets replaced by `ls` within a day. And it states its
own limit in the output ("slow gates not run here"), so a green status
cannot be misread as a green `make all`; the self-test asserts that line
is present, and that the whole report stays under 40 lines.
The positive control is the refusal to be confidently empty: a parser
that found zero workplans and zero tasks would print a clean, wrong
picture, which is worse than the greps it replaces. It also caught a
dot-all regex that returned twenty paragraphs of the preceding task's
prose as the "task heading".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Both hub events carry measured tokens for the first time in this repo;
--hub-only backfills T01, which was closed in the file before the tool
that closes it existed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Replaces the three hand-done steps of a task close (46 turns, $11.52 per
CB-RES-0003): the heredoc flipping status in the workplan file, the
hand-written hub call, and the hand-typed token counts.
The third is the reason this task exists. Every update_task_status this
repo produced carried estimated tokens_in/tokens_out — in a project whose
central finding is that estimated token counts are worthless. task-done
reads the measured figure from the transcripts, or refuses; there is no
path through it that emits an estimate.
cb-cost gains by_task_detail: cost, response count, model histogram and
token components per task. task-done imports cb-cost rather than parsing
its printed table, so the hub figure is not a copy that can drift from
its source.
The positive control found a real defect before the tool ran once.
Attribution keyed on a bare T\d\d from the commit subject, so CB-WP-0002
T01, CB-WP-0003 T01 and CB-WP-0004 T01 shared a bucket: the self-test
reported $12.10 for "T01" where the qualified figure is $2.33. That 5.2x
overstatement would have been pushed to the hub as a *measured* number —
the same fiction in a new form. task_label() now keys qualified subjects
on the full id and leaves unqualified ones bare rather than
retro-assigning them to a workplan. The pinned $93.15 benchmark is
unchanged, so historical attribution was not disturbed.
Fourth instance of trusted arithmetic: a number believed because a
program produced it rather than a hand.
Refusals, all exercised by --self-test: unknown id, typo'd id,
already-done task, missing state_hub_task_id, no measured spend, and a
status flip that produced no change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-RES-0003 measured 84 turns and $15.33 — the largest mechanical
category — spent prefixing commands with `cd` and
`export PATH="$HOME/.cargo/bin:$PATH"`. Both causes are now fixed once
instead of per-leaf.
tools/repo.py resolves the repo root from __file__ and cargo from PATH
then the standard rustup locations. Every tool imports ROOT from it, so
the repo path is stated once rather than redefined in four files —
single source of fact, the rule DFD earned in InnerLoop v1.2.
rule-coverage and dep-weight now call enter_root(), which is why their
relative paths did not need rewriting one by one.
The Makefile derives REPO from MAKEFILE_LIST and resolves CARGO the same
way, so `make -C <repo> <target>` works from any directory with no
prefix.
make env-test is the positive control, and is in `make all`: every tool
runs from / with PATH=/usr/bin:/bin. Without it this fix could regress
silently and invalidate T05's measurement — the whole point of the
control loop.
dep-weight's "cargo not on PATH" error is kept rather than deleted. It
should now be unreachable, and --self-test asserts cargo_bin() resolves
unaided; a control that never fires is cheaper than a regression.
loop-lint failed on repo.py on its first run — a reporting tool with a
positive control but no --self-test entry point. Second time the gate
has caught work from its own pass within the hour.
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>
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>
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>
The retrospective question was whether the mechanism set is complete or
each pass still finds a new class. This pass produced both an eighth
instance AND a fourth class, so the answer is the uncomfortable one.
Ledger: 10 instances, 4 classes, across 3 workplans. Every pass has
produced at least one class the previous pass had not seen.
HDN harness-does-nothing 5 executable assertions
TA trusted arithmetic 3 re-derivation
SSB same-sample blind spot 1 assertions over ALL the data
DFD duplicated-fact drift 2 NEW -- reading a copy against source
DFD is genuinely distinct: no positive control catches it, because both
copies are internally consistent, and re-derivation does not either,
because the copy faithfully reproduces what it was copied from. Found
when an inlined price sheet went stale within an hour of T11 changing
the real one.
So v1.2 stops trying to enumerate classes in advance. Every error in
three passes was corrected in-session for under ~1% of the pass, so the
stated design goal is now cheap CORRECTION: keep raw data so numbers are
re-derivable, keep artifacts small and committed so a wrong number is
one grep from everywhere quoting it, give every number a command.
Plus the one rule the new class earns: single source of fact.
The original hypothesis is revised rather than confirmed. "A rule that
cannot be executed is not a rule" is wrong -- the two most valuable
corrections in the project came from a decorative rule that cannot be
automated (re-derive inherited numbers). An executable rule fires
reliably and catches one class; a decorative one fires unreliably and
can catch any class, including unnamed ones. Keep both.
Gates this pass: loop-lint caught 3 real violations on first run, then
failed on its own author within the hour when a T07 edit pushed
InnerLoop.md to 407 lines against its own 400 limit.
CB-WP-0003 complete: 11 of 11 tasks done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five scenarios encoded U-item defaults with no owner and no review date,
so they could shape the kernel indefinitely while looking handled.
Each now carries provisional_owner and provisional_raised, and the
runtime's ScenarioFile learned both fields (deny_unknown_fields meant
adding them to YAML alone would have failed every scenario -- the parser
had to agree).
make coverage reports every provisional item with its owner and age in
days, warns on any with no owner, and warns past 30 days. It WARNS
rather than breaking the build, on purpose: the ruling is ground-game's
to make and the kernel cannot make it for them. What the loop can
enforce is that evidence files list them, which is now stated in
GroundRules.
rule-coverage --self-test gained an assertion that every provisional
item has both fields, so the next one added without them fails a
command rather than passing quietly.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The copy in MetricsAndScenarios 1a went stale within hours of T11: it
still showed the sonnet intro rate as a comment after the real sheet
moved dated rates into data. A spec that duplicates a data file will
always drift from it; the copy is now a pointer that says so.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
make coverage now reports a second number: how many claimed rules are
also NAMED in the aggregate source. 58/58 tag coverage was weaker
evidence than it read as, and this says how much weaker.
Measured: 49 of 58. Nine rules are claimed by a scenario and appear
nowhere in games/ground/src/lib.rs --
GR-D07 GR-F02 GR-L03 GR-O03 GR-P01 GR-P02 GR-P03 GR-P04 GR-T01.
The gate REPORTS rather than fails, on purpose. Closing the gap by
adding those IDs to comments would satisfy the check without
establishing that any of the nine is implemented -- the overclaim
InnerLoop implementation rule 2 exists to prevent, and one CB-WP-0001
already committed once. Each needs its implementation confirmed before
it is tagged; promoting M-D1-LNK to a failing gate is correct after
that, not before.
Also added: a phantom check that fails when a rule id appears in code
that the spec does not define (currently zero).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The review step targeted the survey. Every serious error in this project
has been in measurement or build configuration, so the loop was
adversarially reviewing the artifact cheapest to fix and leaving
unreviewed the one where errors occur.
Step 2 now routes by risk: when the claim rests on numbers, the reviewer
gets the harness and the evidence file too, and must reproduce the
number independently rather than read about it.
The addition that matters more, because it was learned the hard way: a
reviewer re-derives the author's claims and therefore inherits the
author's SAMPLING. CB-WP-0002's dedup invariant was checked twice --
survey 206/206 groups, then the reviewer independently -- and both used
the main transcript. It is false in the 8-response subagent tree neither
looked at. Two independent verifications, one shared blind spot.
Rule: the reviewer re-derives on a different sample than the author
used, and where only one sample exists, says so rather than reporting
a clean verify.
Also recorded: what review demonstrably DOES do. $0.66 and $1.11 across
two passes, ~1% of each, both finding approval-blocking defects. Cost is
not a reason to skip it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
A blanket "no retargeting in the measuring commit" rule would have been
wrong. CB-WP-0002 moved AC-1 three times in exactly that shape and every
move was correct -- each time a new instrument disproved the old figure.
Four legitimate corrections would have been forbidden to catch one bad
retarget.
The test is mechanical rather than a statement of intent:
correction the target moves and the implementation does not; legal in
the same commit provided the instrument's output is there
retarget the same commit changes both the target and the code the
target measures; requires an ADR stating why the new target
binds on future work
Applied retroactively: AM-4a/AM-4b are UNRATIFIED. They were set after
seeing the measurement, in the commit that produced it, with the
implementation changing too -- a retarget by this test. make dep-weight
is currently enforcing a target no reviewed decision stands behind.
Recorded as an open item; ratifying or changing them is a maintainer
decision, not an implementer's.
Also: specs/InnerLoop.md split into InnerLoop.md (process) and
InnerLoopReference.md (rubric, template, rules, definition of done).
Not a stylistic choice -- `make loop-lint` failed on the commit that
pushed the file to 407 lines against its own ~400 limit. The gate added
this morning to make that rule executable caught its own author within
the hour, which is the cheapest possible demonstration that it works.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The mechanism never fired. Two rolls across two workplans (9, then 2)
against ~0.2 expected firings at d10. At ~2 tier decisions per workplan
it would take roughly twenty workplans to see four overrides -- a rate
that prevents its own evaluation, which T06 named as the one option to
reject.
Raised to d4 for the next 12 tier declarations, then kept, reverted to
d10, or deleted on the evidence. Expected ~3 firings.
Cost stated up front rather than discovered: a chaos-L override on
S-shaped work buys a full survey + review + ADR, and the comparable
measured figure is CB-WP-0001 T03 at $9.91. The window should cost
$20-30. Cheaper than carrying an unevaluated ritual indefinitely.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The price sheet had two defects of one shape -- a schema that could not
hold the fact it needed, the same criticism the cost survey levelled at
the State Hub.
CA-16 time-boxed rates are DATA. Sonnet's intro price lived in a
`# intro ...` comment and was invisible to the collector that
reads the file. Now promo_input/promo_output/promo_until,
applied per response at its own timestamp.
CA-17 the 90-day staleness rule was prose in MetricsAndScenarios 1a
that every M-D2-CST verdict silently inherited. Now `recorded`
+ `max_age_days` in the sheet, and a stale sheet ABORTS.
Both are exercised by make cost-test: the promo rate must apply before
2026-08-31 and lapse after, and a 102-day-old sheet must trip.
Applying CA-16 moved AC-1 from $93.32 to $93.15 -- the $0.17 CB-EV-0002
predicted, now collected rather than noted. That is a legitimate
retarget under T07's distinction: the instrument disproved the target,
and its output is in this commit. The number has now been stated five
times ($248.46, $92.21, $92.87, $93.32, $93.15), each correction from a
different mechanism.
Evidence tables regenerated from the tool rather than hand-patched,
per CA-15 -- which is the rule that exists because hand-typed tables
were the only thing the adversarial review found wrong.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The 8k/10k per-task token budget was never referenced or enforced and
T08 blew past it silently. Replaced with a budget that can actually
fire.
The design constraint is the interesting part: per-task cost needs the
commit that CLOSES the task, so a per-task budget is unavoidably
retrospective -- it can only report a breach after the money is spent,
which is the dead-policy failure again. What IS observable mid-task is
spend since the last commit, because the transcript is append-live. So
the budget binds on the open remainder.
CB-01 budget = USD since the last commit, via `make cost-budget`
CB-02 soft $10.00 (state progress, decide), hard $22.00 (stop)
Calibrated on the 32 non-empty commit intervals of CB-WP-0001: p50
$1.40, p90 $9.36, max $10.80. Soft sits just below the observed maximum
-- it would have fired exactly once on the calibration pass. Hard is ~2x
the observed max, a value never reached in 32 intervals, so reaching it
means the session is doing something the data has no example of.
Both thresholds are set ABOVE every observed value, so they bind on
future work rather than ratifying present work -- the distinction T07
is about.
Stated limit: it is a command, not a daemon. An agent that never runs it
gets no signal, which is the dead-policy failure one level up. Mitigated
only by being free to run and on the one command surface.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The task's original premise was wrong and is recorded rather than
deleted. It was written to prescribe one task per session; measurement
says the variable is context, not turn count.
Measured:
- compaction cut context 27x (542,991 -> 19,974) and cost/turn 3.1x;
the 202 turns after C1 cost less than half the 136 before it
- a turn costs $0.010 at 20k context and $0.270 at 540k
- break-even for a compaction is 2-11 turns, so: compact whenever
context exceeds ~300k and work remains
- a fresh session is NOT free -- cold start floors at ~51k and must
then re-read the artifacts a compact summary already holds (~66k).
Prefer compaction to continue work; prefer a fresh session when the
task changes, because then prior context is pure overhead.
cb-cost now emits SH-1..SH-3 so the targets come from the instrument
rather than from analysis, per InnerLoop v1.1. All three are UNMET
(mean context 232,982 vs 200,000; p90 492,042 vs 300,000; batching 7.8%
vs 20%) and are reported unmet rather than retargeted -- retargeting in
the commit that first measures is precisely what T07 exists to prevent.
Eighth error instance found while writing this: CB-WP-0001's claim that
"0 of 330 tool calls were batched" is wrong. 330 was the count of
single-call responses, not the total; 31 responses batched, covering 76
calls. It was carried into this workplan unverified. Trusted-arithmetic
class -- the one the T01 audit flagged as having no executable defence,
confirming that finding within hours of making it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Both items were completed as part of the T01 audit: the two older
reporting tools gained --self-test entry points, and loop-lint's
self-test check makes the contract mechanical for any new tool.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
41 rules classified executable / checkable / decorative, each tagged with
the failure class it catches. Counts: 11 executable, 22 checkable, 4
decorative (one of them dead policy).
Audit: history/260731-inner-loop-rule-audit.md
New tools/loop-lint.py makes 7 rules executable (tier declared, chaos
roll recorded, tier-L review trail, unmeasured-in-evidence, whole-file
loadability, reporting tools expose --self-test). It found three real
violations on its first run, none previously visible:
- specs/ArchitectureBlueprint.md was 543 lines against a ~400 limit
the loop has stated since v0.2 and never measured. Split at its own
section boundaries into Blueprint (1-8) + Runtime (9-15).
- tools/dep-weight.py and tools/rule-coverage.py had positive-control
logic and no --self-test, so nothing verified the control worked.
Adding rule-coverage's self-test exposed a latent instance of the exact
class this workplan is about: if the spec regex stopped matching, rules
was empty, missing was empty, and the tool exited 0 reporting "0/0" --
a silent pass, in the tool that reports our headline AM-1 number. Both
tools now assert they found something before reporting.
Two demotions applied in the spec rather than left implicit: "structured
over prose" is marked guidance (nothing can check it), and the 8k/10k
token budget is struck through and marked DEAD POLICY pointing at T05.
The audit's uncomfortable finding: rule 13 (re-derive inherited numbers)
has no mechanical form, is deliberately left decorative, and caught the
LARGEST error in CB-WP-0002. That is a counter-example to this
workplan's own hypothesis. "A rule that cannot be executed is not a
rule" is wrong as stated; the defensible version is that such a rule
cannot be relied on to fire, so it must not be the only defence for a
class that matters.
Class coverage: harness-does-nothing has five executable rules;
trusted-arithmetic has ZERO and produced the largest single error.
make loop-lint and make self-tests wired into `make all` and CI.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The framing hypothesis -- a rule that cannot be executed is not a rule
-- survives but was too coarse. CB-WP-0002 corrected one number four
times and each correction came from a DIFFERENT mechanism, none finding
more than one. Two limits are now measured rather than assumed:
- a positive control cannot catch trusted arithmetic (both errors in
$248.46 were sums over data that really existed)
- adversarial review cannot catch a same-sample blind spot: survey and
reviewer both verified dedup on the main transcript, and it is false
in the subagent tree neither examined
Task-level revisions:
T01 also classify each rule by WHICH failure class it catches; seven
instances across three classes are now on record
T02 scope reduced -- the --self-test contract, cb-cost's five
assertions, make cost-test in CI are delivered; remaining work is
rule-coverage/dep-weight plus a check that new tools carry one
T03 now backed by two measurements ($0.66, $1.11 at ~1% of a pass),
and must also state what review CANNOT do
T04 premise overturned -- sessions are bounded-quadratic, not
quadratic. /compact cut context 27x and cost/turn 3.1x. Measure
compaction against a fresh session before prescribing either
T05 unblocked, with calibration data ($1.29-$21.02/task) and the
constraint that a budget binds only on the 67.5% attribution
reaches, only after the closing commit
T07 sharpened -- CB-WP-0002 retargeted three times, correctly, so a
blanket prohibition is wrong; separate instrument-disproved-target
from implementation-missed-target
T10 its prediction is already falsified; the successor question is
whether class-by-class hardening converges at all
T11 NEW -- the price sheet cannot express a dated rate and becomes
wrong on 2026-08-31
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Answers the question the workplan posed: did v1.0's "every metric names
its instrument" rule stop a metric being written without a working
instrument? No. AC-1 named `cb-cost --pin` before that tool existed and
set a hand-computed target of $92.87; the tool returned $93.32. The rule
was satisfied completely and the metric was still wrong.
v1.1 adds:
- the instrument must exist and the target must come out of it;
targets are provisional until the tool emits them
- a number inherited from earlier work is re-derived before use as a
target, or cited as unverified
- every reporting tool exposes --self-test, run before the number
- cost is in the definition of done; M-D2-CST may not be uncomputable
The cost of CB-WP-0001 was stated four times before it was right --
$248.46, $92.21, $92.87, $93.32 -- and each correction came from a
different mechanism: re-derivation, adversarial review, and the positive
control. None found more than one. That is the case for keeping all
three.
CB-WP-0003 T10 predicted the next error would be harness-does-nothing.
It was not, twice. Trusted arithmetic over real data would pass a
positive control; and a property verified on 206/206 groups of the main
transcript is false in the 8-response subagent tree that neither the
survey nor the reviewer examined separately. Review structurally cannot
catch the second -- re-deriving on the same sample reproduces the same
blind spot.
Workplan status: done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
