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>
Written back by fix-consistency: workstream and task UUIDs for the ten
CB-WP-0003 tasks, plus the regenerated WORK-RECORDS.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Covers what the immediate CI fixes did not. Framing finding: writing a
rule into InnerLoop did not prevent the next instance of the failure it
was written for; making it a CI step caught one on its first run. Four
instances of the harness-does-nothing class, zero prevented by prose.
Working hypothesis: a loop rule that cannot be executed is not a rule.
Each item is made executable or deleted, default delete.
Phase A makes rules executable: audit every InnerLoop rule as
executable/checkable/decorative, extend the positive-control gate beyond
benchmarks, and point adversarial review at measurement rather than only
research — all four real errors were in measurement and build config,
which the review never reads.
Phase B is session economics, from measurement: 592 turns, mean context
245k tokens, $0.245/turn in cache reads, zero batched tool calls, cache
reads 58% of cost against output at 12%. Cost is turns x context and
context grows with turns, so a long session is quadratic. Also replaces
the dead 8k/10k token budget, which was never enforced and which T08
exceeded by orders of magnitude with no signal.
Phase C removes or fixes the rest: resolve the chaos roll (never fired,
and at 1-in-10 will stay unevaluated), require retargeting to be an ADR
rather than something the implementer does in the commit that measures
the metric, give provisional items an owner and expiry, and strengthen
the coverage gate beyond tag-counting.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
