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>
Adversarial review per InnerLoop Step 2 — separate agent, given only the
survey, one round. Challenge and response in history/.
The arithmetic held: every pinned figure and the whole three-method
correction table reproduced to the cent under ~20 independent spot
checks. The hand-written markdown tables did not. Three blocking
defects:
- the dedup positive-control table failed its own checksum (group
sizes summed to 348 groups / 663 lines, not 346 / 657; multi-line
groups are 206, not 208) — the worst place for a slip, since that
table is the sole evidence for the load-bearing dedup assumption
- the multi-model table was labelled "deduped" while holding per-line
counts, three lines below the paragraph condemning per-line counts
- the $92.21 acceptance target excluded the subagent tree, which ran
INSIDE the pin window. A collector correctly implementing the
survey's own blind-spot finding would have failed the benchmark.
Target is now $92.87, stated as its two components.
Folded in, each re-derived before conceding:
- attribution must key on sessionId, not wall-clock: two sessions
overlap 4h13m on this repo carrying ~$12 (one of them was this
workplan's own background job)
- only 14 of 33 commits name a task; the other 19 hold 33% of cost
- cache writes bill per TTL — pricing the aggregate at 1h inflates
the subagent by 43%
- the "~87% cache" figure matched nothing; 64.6% of cost is cache
read, 88.4% is all cache
- fable is 35% of calls and 60% of dollars; opus is the inverse
Review cost ~$0.60 against a $92 pass, the second consecutive round
where that trade found something material. Evidence for CB-WP-0003 T03.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Tier L (structural L, chaos d10=2). Every candidate exercised locally
against the CB-WP-0001 transcript rather than cited.
Verdict: session transcript JSONL is the only exact instrument; git
commits supply the attribution index it lacks; the State Hub is a
durable sink whose schema cannot express cache tokens at all; the
status bar and billing API are eliminated on availability.
Three errors found in this workplan's own Purpose section, all
overstating cost:
- one API response is written as up to six JSONL lines, each
repeating the same usage object (657 lines, 346 responses)
- a multi-model session was priced entirely at Fable 5 rates,
violating a per-model rule MetricsAndScenarios §1a already had
- the transcript is a live file, so an unpinned total is not
repeatable (346 -> 356 responses between two runs minutes apart)
CB-WP-0001 pinned at fc76445: $92.21, not $248.46. The qualitative
finding sharpens rather than weakens — 88.4% of spend is cache, at
256:1 cache-read to output tokens.
Neither error was of the harness-does-nothing class the positive
control was written for; both sums ran over real data. What caught
them was re-deriving a number instead of quoting it. Raised for T07
and for CB-WP-0003 T01.
Also measured: the one subagent (adversarial review) cost $0.66 and is
invisible to a collector reading only the main transcript.
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>
