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>
