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>
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>
