Provenance (tier M, structural S, chaos d4=4 -> OVERRIDE drawn M):
the maintainer could drag after CB-WP-0016 but could not tell what was
pickable, held, or droppable. Underneath that, the page was WRONG about
which moves exist: 9 legal commands rendered as 5 cards each claiming
all three target kinds, from a const string in the emitter. Investigate
is legal on problems 2 and 3 but not 1; Solve on 1 but not 2 or 3. The
live page now says 'Solve onto problem 1'.
ADR-0010 restates control 5, which this work would otherwise have
outgrown in silence: every game fact the page acts on must arrive from
Rust as data; the script may read, match and render it, never compute,
infer, filter or default one. The survey's real finding is that the
permitted and forbidden designs are indistinguishable from outside, so
the vocabulary grep is demoted to a cheap first line and two behavioural
properties become the controls -- the highlighted set EQUALS the set
Rust emitted, and anything the page marks legal must resolve. Both
mutation-proven; the derive-legality mutation produces a plausible
highlight (seat-0,1,2 where only seat-1 is legal) and is caught.
Visible now: .pick resting shadow, .held on the grabbed element, .dropok
on every legal target including BOTH drawings of a seat, and a ghost
following the pointer. Nothing perceptual is verified and ADR-0010 D5
says so.
The DOM stub now models classList/querySelectorAll/createElement and
builds its node set from the real emitted page. Trap recorded: QuickJS
fixes its stack limit at Context creation relative to that frame, so a
helper returning a Context makes every later eval report
'SyntaxError: stack overflow'.
CHAOS WINDOW CLOSED, 12 declarations, 2 overrides, one each way. Both
changed the outcome, so the retirement condition is not met. Verdict:
keep, and recommend d4 -> d8 with a second window of 12 -- that is a
change to the loop's own constraints and is owed to the next declaration
as tier-M work, not made here.
CB-EV-0014 corrected: it quoted CB-WP-0015 at $15.14/136 and called it
the first settled figure quoted. Now $22.70/166. The number had been
read during CB-WP-0015 itself, so there are two defects -- the boundary,
and quoting from memory instead of re-running the instrument.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Provenance (tier S, one paragraph in lieu of survey and ADR): the two
clauses mutation-check has reported inert since CB-WP-0005. AM-7's
scaling ratio was held up by a test literally named
replay_100k_events_is_linear_and_fast that computed both throughputs,
printed both, and never divided one by the other. AM-8's N=10 was held
up by a runner that does two.
Both are now red. AM-7 3/3, AM-8 2/2, M-D1-MUT 10/14, and ADR-0005's
>=10-of-14 prediction MET for the first time. Neither was closed by
amending the question away, which was the live risk: the denominator is
unchanged and the four unenforced rows are the four already
unenforceable.
AM-7 needed three estimators. Best-of-N per leg then divide (AM-6's,
correct for a floor on one number) gave 0.581-1.085 on an unchanged
binary; legs back-to-back gave medians 0.931-1.004; legs interleaved at
fold granularity give 0.987/0.991/0.989, and 0.989 under 8-way CPU
contention while absolute throughput fell 4x. The INDETERMINATE guard
demanded unanimity and failed a good measurement over one sample
0.001 under the floor; it now requires a two-thirds majority. The
control that matters: AM-6's constant-cost mutation halves throughput
and leaves this ratio at 0.999x green, so AM-7 is not a second AM-6.
AM-8 kept N=10 because the measurement said so. Perturbing the RNG only
from its fourth construction on: --runs 2 PASSES, --runs 10 fails. A
late-onset divergence is deterministic, not flaky, so it is a control
rather than a coin flip. Ten runs live on one scenario (make am8, ~2s)
rather than all 25 (47s a build). GameKernel 5b records it.
The full run also found AM-4a's own mutation stale since ADR-0008 D3
moved the target 250,000 -> 161,000 in CB-WP-0013 -- reported
HARNESS-BROKEN, no score published. The build-free half of that check
is now a --self-test assertion, so make all catches the next one.
mutation-check clauses may now carry their own verify and mutation, and
then the enforced flag is measured rather than declared; a declaration
disagreeing with its measurement is refused.
make all exits 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
ADR-0008, tier M (survey and ADR merged).
D1 — SH-3 retired as a gate, kept as a diagnostic. Investigating it
found a third defect, deeper than the two this pass was declared on.
Re-deriving batching from the raw transcripts, independently of cb-cost:
CB-WP-0011 pass 54 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 16 with tools 6 batched 37.5%
CB-WP-0012 pass 86 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
gap -> next decl 10 with tools 1 batched 10.0%
CB-WP-0013 so far 10 with tools 0 batched 0.0%
Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap, above the
20% floor. Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once —
orientation work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the
next. SH-3's window is since the last commit, which during a pass is
always implementation. The metric could not read above ~0% in the window
it was gated on. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a
target.
This pass's own declaration was also wrong: it claimed batching "has got
worse" (7.8-8.6% vs 1.1-6.3%). Differently-placed windows, not different
behaviour. Withdrawn — the same class of error, in the pass written to
correct it.
Not retargeting to match the measurement: the floor was not moved to 6%,
the gate was removed on an argument about what the quantity is worth.
The number is still reported; only the verdict is gone.
D2/D3 — AM-4a counts --edges normal,no-proc-macro: 157,202, not 246,250.
The target moves down with it, 250,000 -> 161,000, so the correction
hands back essentially nothing (headroom 3,750 -> 3,798). Three controls:
the exclusion drops exactly the five expected crates, only removes and
never adds, and is not a no-op.
The DFD gate then caught the follow-on it exists for — three historical
documents carrying live fact tags for a number that had changed. Not
rewritten; untagged, with a supersession banner.
AM-4b is deliberately not corrected: its proc-macro share is unmeasured.
gate-review now reads 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted — GATE-REVIEW earns its
first caught entry by forcing SH-3's re-justification, and the registry
has no silent gates left.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0010. The pass's own verdict on the tier it ran at.
Full-weight review withdrew the capability port the declaration was made
to build. A tier-S pass has no step 2 and would have shipped it, and
stage 2 would have found it unimplementable — which is what CommitWindow
is already on record in this repo for doing.
Two corrections of the survey's own numbers, compounding:
AM-4a headroom 3,750 claimed -> 92,798 measured (25x)
cheapest windowed 480,501 claimed -> 140,079 measured (3.4x)
headline ratio 128x -> 1.5x (85x)
The prediction from CB-EV-0009 §4 held: meta budget reads 0%, published
in advance and unfalsified.
A correction that is now a pattern: CB-EV-0009 reported CB-WP-0011 at
45 responses / $4.23 / 0.094; final is 71 / $7.02 / 0.099. Still the
cheapest pass, so the conclusion stands. But that is the second
consecutive evidence file to report its own pass's cost low — a pass
cannot measure its own cost, and one quoting its own is quoting a floor.
First priced tier comparison on a single subject: 0.123 $/response at L
against 0.099 at S — 24% more, for a pass that found the two errors
above. On one data point, step 2 is cheap.
Not shipped, and said plainly: the emitted JavaScript has never been
executed. The socket loop is tested end to end with synthetic HTTP and
the page is asserted against as a parsed document, but no browser engine
has run it. INTENT stage 1 therefore stays open even though all four of
its named deliverables now exist.
SH-3 reads 0.0% for a sixth consecutive pass and remains the oldest
unargued number in the project.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
CB-EV-0009. Tier S did not produce a worse outcome than tier L would
have. The roll deleted a survey that would have opened on 2D toolkit
selection; the decomposition it forced instead found that the existing
text renderer was showing 24 of 41 view fields. The structural trigger
fires on a property of the plan, not of the code, so nothing in the
tier derivation could have said the port was the wrong first question.
Recorded honestly in both directions: the pass also made an interface
change with no review, which is the cost side. One favourable fire is
not a calibration; the window stays open to 2026-09-30.
Corrects a number this pass asserted: the T01 commit message says
'42 of 43, up from 24'. Measured by splicing the old renderer back in,
it is 41 of 42 with 1 declared omitted, up from 24 -- and 16 fields
were genuinely absent, not 17, because outcome.winners was rendered in
a different format. Both original figures were counted by hand.
CHAOS gains its first caught entry. Cheapest pass per response yet
recorded (0.094 vs a previous best of 0.123).
ADR-0006 D3. Nine standing control gates now say what they check, what
they have caught with pointers, when their keep-or-kill argument is due,
and what would retire them. make gate-review reports what is overdue and
what has caught nothing; it never fails the build, for CB-RES-0005 §4's
reason.
Drift is checked in both directions and both are pinned by self-tests: a
dependency of `make all` that is neither a registered control gate nor
listed in not_control_gates is a loop-lint finding, so a new gate cannot
acquire permanence without a review date, and an entry naming a target
the Makefile lacks is a finding too.
First run: 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the chaos roll, whose
12-declaration window exists precisely to find out, and gate-review
itself, which is not exempt from its own rule — if it has retired,
tightened or forced the re-justification of nothing by 2026-12-31 it is
a ritual and goes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
