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>
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>
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>
- 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>
Collector per ADR-0003: enumerates every transcript including the
subagents/ tree, dedups by requestId, prices per model and per cache
TTL, attributes on (prev_commit, this_commit] intervals, and reconciles
to the cent or aborts.
The positive control caught a real defect on its very first run against
real data, which is the entire argument for writing it:
CA-02 assumed usage is identical across the lines of one requestId.
True in the main transcript (206/206 groups, verified twice — by the
survey and by the adversarial reviewer). FALSE in the subagents/
tree, where output_tokens is a running count: one response reads
5, 5, 195 across its three lines. First-wins scored it at 5.
So CA-02 now splits: input-side counters are charged once and must be
identical (assertion retained); output_tokens resolves to the max
(CA-02a). AC-9 pins the exact 5,5,195 case as a regression test.
The acceptance target moved again as a result, for the third time:
$248.46 -> $92.21 -> $92.87 -> $93.32. AC-1 was computed by the same
first-wins method the tool just disproved, so the tool failing its
target was the tool being correct. Target updated, not the tool.
Measured at the pin: $92.21 main + $1.11 subagent = $93.32, residual
$0.000000. 32.5% UNATTRIBUTED, reported as its own line per CA-10.
make cost / cost-test / cost-pin wired; cost-test added to `make all`
and to CI, where it gates the collector's assertions without needing
transcripts present.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Normative spec for the cost model (dedup by requestId, per-model and
per-TTL pricing), the attribution contract (ending-at-commit intervals
scoped by sessionId), and the reported shape (composition, not a total).
Every acceptance row names the command that produces its number, per
InnerLoop Step 4. AC-5..AC-8 are the positive control: cb-cost
--self-test must fail on a dedup violation, on zero responses, on a
missing subagent tree, and on 5m cache priced at the 1h rate.
The feasibility check earns its place here: AC-1's $92.87 is reachable
only if CA-06 holds. The earlier $92.21 target was reachable only by a
collector with the exact blind spot the survey documented.
MetricsAndScenarios 1a superseded. Two of its rules struck through
rather than deleted, because both were wrong in instructive ways: "if
the cache split is unknown, count all input at full price" would have
priced 80.5M cache reads at 10x, and "the hub already records tokens"
named as a source what is only ever a lossy sink. M-D2-TOK demoted --
tokens are not comparable across models or cache states.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adopts both remediations from CB-EV-0001 §4 (maintainer decision).
Option A — serde_yaml is now optional behind cb-game-runtime's
`scenarios` feature. The scenario module, the ScenarioGame impl and the
string parsers behind it are cfg-gated; cb-sim opts in explicitly. Both
configurations compile and lint clean under -D warnings.
A trap worth recording: `default-features = false` on a *member*
dependency is silently ignored when the workspace dependency does not
specify it. The first attempt gated nothing while looking correct — the
build succeeded and cargo tree still showed all six YAML crates. Fixed
by setting it on the workspace dependency. This is the positive-control
failure mode in miniature: success was not evidence the change applied.
Retarget — AM-4 now measures third-party source under audit, split by
build configuration, replacing a crate count that was unreachable
without undoing K5/K7 and that does not compare across ecosystems.
Re-measured via the new `make dep-weight`, whose own positive control
refuses to report when any crate's source cannot be located:
shipped runtime 23 crates 246,250 lines target <=250,000 met
dev toolchain 29 crates 317,021 lines target <=350,000 met
own source 3,408 lines
Scenario tooling costs 70,771 lines a shipped game never compiles —
the split the single number was hiding.
Targets are set at current measurement plus headroom, so they bind on
future growth rather than retroactively passing what had failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The loop has now survived CB-WP-0001 end to end and is revised from what
that pass actually taught, recorded in
history/260731-inner-loop-retrospective.md.
Held up: the adversarial review (one blocking and three significant
findings on its single use, resolved with new measurements rather than
argument), the parity-cap rule, the provisional U-item mechanism, and
the ADR gate.
The gap: both serious errors in the pass were measurement errors, and
the loop caught neither. Review reads prose; these were claims about
numbers. In both cases a harness ran successfully while doing no work —
a JS harness timing rejected no-ops, and a Rust benchmark computing
throughput for rounds that never completed.
v1.0 adds:
- Measurement validity: a harness must assert it performed the work it
reports. A number from a run that cannot prove it did the work is void.
- Metric feasibility: every metric names its instrument and is checked
reachable against the contracts in its own spec.
- No silently-ignored input; decisions get commands, not defaults;
scaffolds are exercised or marked; coverage gates that count tags say
so.
- Evidence must state what a comparison does not support.
- The chaos roll is recorded even when it changes nothing, so a
mechanism that never fires is visible rather than assumed.
CB-WP-0001 is complete: 9/9 tasks done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
