InnerLoop v1.7. The purpose is written first and the number follows from
it: most spend on the task at hand, some on control, review and
improving the process. make status prints it above the figure, because a
threshold with no stated purpose is what let this number be argued three
times.
Soft 20% over a trailing 5, and the self-test enforces that the ratio and
the window are a PAIR: META_SOFT_PCT == 100 / TRAILING_PASSES. One meta
pass among n at parity cost reads 1/n, so 80/20 is one pass in five at
normal cost -- a five-pass window. The same 20% over three would have
silently also demanded the meta pass be half-price, which makes meta work
rushed rather than rare. Moving the ratio without the window goes red.
The phase setting is declared, argued and expiring in gates.toml, and
reverts on review_by unless re-argued. Verified live at 35%. One with no
reason or no expiry is refused rather than honoured, because a threshold
anyone may move is not a threshold.
Measured: the last five passes read 7% against the new line.
InnerLoop.md crossed the 400-line limit three times while this was
written and was fixed structurally each time -- the arithmetic, the
cost-per-response basis and the two review case studies moved to
InnerLoopReference.md. The limit was not raised.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
T03: input::describe writes a sentence per legal command; data-descs
carries them in step with data-targets; the ghost already following the
pointer shows the one for whatever legal target is under it, so the
explanation lands beside the target with no overlay layer to keep
aligned. ADR-0010 D1 binds -- the page renders it, never composes it.
Both mutations INITIALLY SURVIVED because the fixture's Attack card had
exactly one target, where an off-by-one shift and a truncation are both
no-ops. CB-EV-0014's lesson one level in: a fixture too thin to express
a failure is how the failure survives. Two attack targets now, both red.
T04: chaos rate d4 -> d8, window 2 open at 12 declarations, retiring if
an override changes nothing twice running. Window 1's condition was NOT
met -- both overrides changed the outcome -- so the mechanism is kept.
The weakest part of the decision is that it is a rate change argued from
n=2, so window 2 carries a falsifier: no override at all is evidence the
rate went too far, not that the mechanism is healthy.
InnerLoop.md hit 401 lines and the loadability gate fired; the rationale
moved to InnerLoopReference.md, structurally, per the standing precedent
that limits are not raised.
CB-WP-0017 settled at $9.48/40 against $5.19/23 reported mid-flight,
83% higher. Six for six, always low -- read by re-running the instrument
at the moment of quoting, which is CB-EV-0015's correction applied for
the first time.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
D2 the two exemptions — repairing the instrument that reports a breach
is always in budget, and the maintainer may authorize above-line work in
the workplan frontmatter. v1.5 had neither, and the first thing it did
was forbid fixing the budget's own defect.
D4 loop work cashes out into something runnable in the pass that invents
it, with the measured basis and the refutation condition stated.
D5 the tier table now triggers at M for changes to the loop's own
operation, closing the gap CB-RES-0005 §6 opened and this pass's own ADR
had to declare around.
The file went from 399 lines to 386: the chaos-roll calibration
rationale and the v1.0-v1.3 change log moved to InnerLoopReference.md.
Loadability is a gate too, and growing the file to fit a rule about
gates would have been the joke writing itself.
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>
