coulomb/clay-borg
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Compare commits

base: coulomb:e482ab9f8f84c4f9b69e22622d8ed9a787f5c338
Branches Tags
coulomb:main
...
compare: coulomb:768eee7d2718ea8802d04f860f5057d6a415eec6
Branches Tags
coulomb:main

4 commits
e482ab9f8f ... 768eee7d27

Author SHA1 Message Date
tegwick
768eee7d27 CB-WP-0013-T04: evidence — and a rule about quoting your own cost
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Details 
CB-EV-0011. Three instruments were wrong; the pass found the third
defect itself and committed the fourth.

The rule this pass should leave behind: an evidence file quotes the
PREVIOUS pass's final cost, not its own. Three for three, all low by a
strikingly consistent ~2/3:

  CB-WP-0009   $6.73 reported ->  $11.31 final
  CB-WP-0011   $4.23 reported ->   $7.02 final
  CB-WP-0012   $8.82 reported ->  $14.52 final

And this time it changed a conclusion. CB-EV-0010 reported the first
priced tier comparison as "0.123 at L against 0.099 at S — 24% more".
The final figures are 0.150 against 0.099 — 51% more. Tier L costs twice
what that comparison claimed. It still deleted a port that would have
been rewritten and found errors of 25x and 85x, so it still looks worth
it, but the price doubled and the file that made the argument could not
have known.

Also closed rather than deferred again: cb-play's "third mode" never
arrived. --serve is a play flag selecting which Policy fills a human
seat; the binary still has two modes, and CB-EV-0010 §6 was wrong.
Carried for two passes, resolved, stopped.

Recorded as a near-miss: an instrument reading that looked impossible
(53 tool calls in 53 responses) turned out to be correct. One
independent re-derivation before writing anything stopped a false
accusation — in the pass whose whole subject is instruments reporting
things that are not so.

gate-review: 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted. Every gate in the registry has
a caught entry for the first time.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-02 07:32:07 +02:00
tegwick
d2c3f340f9 CB-WP-0013-T02/T03: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a and its target 
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>
 2026-08-02 07:30:14 +02:00
tegwick
6080c4cf60 CB-WP-0013-T01: SH-3 refuses a window that cannot carry a rate 
The metric six evidence files reported as 0.0% was never measured.
--shape-budget windows since the last commit, and it is read while
writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the window holds
one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2.
SH-3 is a rate: at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%.

cb-cost.py gains sh3_line(), which below a minimum sample prints
"insufficient sample" and no verdict. The floor is derived: if the true
rate were exactly the 20% target, P(zero batched in n) = 0.8^n, and at
n=14 that is 4.4% — so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate
at ~95%. Below that the tool has nothing to say and now says so.

The window was kept rather than split. SH-3 could have been given a
per-pass window, but the budget's purpose is the open remainder since
the last commit, and giving one of three metrics a different window
makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool three specs cite.

Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason —
including the one the evidence files actually hit, where a refusal is
printed as a measured zero.

SessionShape.md §4 carries the correction with the real per-pass figures
(1.1%-6.3%), beside the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. This is the
ninth, and the second in this same metric. It also shows what the frozen
0.0% hid: against the pinned 7.8%-8.6%, batching has got worse, and six
passes reported a breach that was moving underneath them.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-02 07:23:04 +02:00
tegwick
7105027173 Declare CB-WP-0013: two instruments that were wrong, tier M 
Declaration 8 of 12. Structural tier M (changes how the loop constrains
its own operation — a budget instrument and a gate floor); d4 = 3, no
override. Meta budget reads 0% of the trailing three, so this is in
budget without the ADR-0006 D2 repair exemption.

The SH-3 half is larger than CB-WP-0012 filed it as. "SH-3 has read
0.0% for six consecutive passes" is an artifact: --shape-budget measures
the window since the last commit, and it is read while writing the
evidence file, immediately after a commit, when that window holds one or
two responses. SH-1 and SH-2 are location statistics and survive n=2;
SH-3 is a rate, and at n=2 its only possible values are 0%, 50%, 100%.

Measured over real per-pass windows it is 1.1%-6.3%, not 0.0%. Which
exposes what the artifact hid: the pinned historical rate is 7.8%-8.6%,
so batching has got WORSE, and a metric stuck at a constant could not
have shown it.

That is the ninth recorded instance of the trusted-arithmetic class, and
the second one in this same metric — SessionShape.md §4 already records
"0 of 330 tool calls were batched" as the eighth.

Also owed: AM-4a counts proc-macro crates that never reach a binary
(89,048 lines, 36.2%). The task is explicit that the target must move
down with the instrument, or the pass must argue why 89,048 lines of
unearned headroom are legitimate.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-02 07:21:00 +02:00
12 changed files with 800 additions and 21 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
WORK-RECORDS.md
View file

@ -95,3 +95,7 @@
| task | CB-WP-0012-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md |
| task | CB-WP-0012-T04 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md |
| task | CB-WP-0012-T05 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0012-render-port.md |
| task | CB-WP-0013-T01 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md |
| task | CB-WP-0013-T02 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md |
| task | CB-WP-0013-T03 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md |
| task | CB-WP-0013-T04 | done | — | workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md |

10
decisions/ADR-0004-am4-ratification.md
View file

@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
# ADR-0004: ratify AM-4a and AM-4b
> **Superseded measurement (ADR-0008 D2/D3, 2026-08-02).** The AM-4a
> figures below were taken with an instrument that counted proc-macro
> crates — 89,048 lines, 36.2% — which run in the compiler and never
> reach a binary. Corrected, the same tree measures **157,202** against
> a target moved to **161,000**. The numbers below are left as the
> record of what was measured then, and are no longer live facts.
status: accepted
date: 2026-07-31
decided by: maintainer (Bernd Worsch), 2026-07-31
@ -49,7 +57,7 @@ At the time of the retarget, `make dep-weight`:
| configuration | crates | third-party LOC |
|---|---|---|
| shipped-runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | **246,250** | <!-- fact:am4a_loc -->
| shipped-runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | **246,250** | <!-- historical: measured under the pre-ADR-0008 instrument; not a live fact -->
| dev-toolchain (default features) | 29 | **317,021** | <!-- fact:am4b_loc -->
| own source | — | 3,443 |

158
decisions/ADR-0008-instrument-corrections.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
# ADR-0008: retire SH-3 as a gate; correct AM-4a to count what ships
status: accepted
date: 2026-08-02
decided by: agent, under the standing loop authorization. One item is
reserved for the maintainer — see §Reserved.
tier: M (structural M — changes how the loop constrains its own operation:
a gate floor and a budget instrument, InnerLoop v1.6 / ADR-0006 D5;
chaos d4=3 → no override). Tier M merges survey and ADR into one document,
which this is; the adversarial review is optional and was not run.
references: [CB-WP-0013](../workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md),
[SessionShape.md](../specs/SessionShape.md) §4,
[ADR-0006](ADR-0006-adaptive-control-gates.md) D1/D2/D4,
[ADR-0007](ADR-0007-render-html-not-a-port.md) D4,
[CB-EV-0010](../evidence/CB-EV-0010-render-port.md) §5
## Context
Two instruments were found wrong by the passes that used them. Neither
error was in the direction that flattered us, and one of them has been
producing a standing breach report for seven passes.
---
## Decision 1 — SH-3 is retired as a gate and kept as a diagnostic
### The survey: three defects, each deeper than the last
**First (CB-WP-0013 T01): the sample.** `--shape-budget` windows since the
last commit and is read while writing the evidence file — right after a
commit, when the window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location
statistics and survive that. SH-3 is a rate; at n=2 its only values are
0%, 50%, 100%. Six evidence files quoted the resulting `0.0%` as a
measurement. Fixed: below a derived minimum of 14 the tool now prints
`insufficient sample` and no verdict.
**Second: the claimed decline was also an artifact.** This workplan's own
Purpose stated that batching *"has got worse"* — pinned history 7.8–8.6%
against per-pass windows of 1.1–6.3%. **That was wrong**, and by the same
class of error it was written to correct. The two figures come from
differently-placed windows, not from different behaviour. Withdrawn.
**Third, and the one that decides this: the window and the metric are
systematically anti-correlated.** Measured, by re-deriving batching
independently of `cb-cost` from the raw transcripts:
| window | responses with tools | batched | rate |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| CB-WP-0011 pass | 54 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 16 | 6 | **37.5%** |
| CB-WP-0012 pass | 86 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 10 | 1 | **10.0%** |
| CB-WP-0013 so far | 10 | 0 | **0.0%** |
**Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses across three passes, and
37.5% in the gap between two of them** — comfortably above the 20% floor.
The cause is not discipline. Batching requires two tool calls whose inputs
are both known at once. Orientation and survey work is full of those: read
four files, run three probes. Implementation has almost none, because each
step consumes the previous step's result — read, edit, test, read the
failure, fix. **So SH-3 measures what kind of work is happening.**
And SH-3's window is *since the last commit*, which during a pass is
always in-pass work. **The metric is structurally incapable of reading
above ~0% in the window it is gated on.** It is not a strict gate — it can
only be met by not working.
### The decision
**SH-3 stops being a gate.** The 20% floor and the `[SOFT]` verdict are
removed. `cb-cost` continues to report the batching rate as a diagnostic,
over the whole session, where it reads 5.8% (57 batched of 984 responses
with tool calls).
Four reasons, strongest first:
1. **It cannot report what it gates on.** §above. A floor that the
measurement window structurally excludes is not a target.
2. **It measures composition, not waste.** Penalising an implementation
pass for not batching penalises it for being an implementation pass.
3. **Its own spec bounds its value.** `specs/SessionShape.md` §4:
*"eliminating every avoidable single-call turn would remove at most a
few percent of turns, worth roughly $2–4 on a $93 pass"*, and *"batch
because it is free, not because it is the lever."* It also calls SH-3
*"the least valuable"* of the three.
4. **Seven passes, seven breach reports, zero actions.** ADR-0006 D4:
rituals cash out or go.
### This is not retargeting to match the measurement
`specs/SessionShape.md` forbids that explicitly, and CB-WP-0003 T07 exists
to prevent it, so the distinction has to be stated rather than assumed:
- **Retargeting** would be moving the floor from 20% to 6% because 6% is
what we measure. That is not done and is still forbidden.
- **This** removes the gate on the argument that the *quantity* does not
deserve one — established before the disposition, from the window
structure and from the spec's own valuation.
And the obvious objection — *retiring a metric right when it shows a
regression looks like burying it* — is answered by the second defect: the
regression was an artifact of window placement and has been withdrawn.
There is no established decline to bury. The number is still reported;
only the verdict is gone.
## Decision 2 — AM-4a counts `--edges normal,no-proc-macro`
ADR-0007 D4, owed. AM-4a's figure includes proc-macro crates that run in
the compiler and never reach a binary: **89,048 lines, 36.2%** of the
shipped-runtime figure, `syn` alone 66,916.
`tools/dep-weight.py` measures `--edges normal,no-proc-macro` for the
shipped-runtime configuration.
## Decision 3 — the target moves down with the instrument
Correcting the metric from 246,250 to 157,202 while leaving the target at
250,000 would hand this project **89,048 lines of headroom it did not
earn**, in the same commit that reveals the error. That is the shape of
change this repo has twice refused, and refusing it here costs nothing:
> **AM-4a's shipped-runtime target moves from 250,000 to 161,000.**
161,000 preserves the *ratio* the ratified target expressed — 250,000 was
set against a 246,250 measurement, i.e. ~1.5% of headroom; 161,000 against
157,202 is ~2.4%. Rounding to a round number slightly *above* strict
proportionality is deliberate and is the only place this decision gives
anything back, because a target that leaves 1.5% of room is a target that
fails on a dependency's patch release.
**AM-4b (dev-toolchain) is left alone**, at 350,000 against a 317,021
measurement. It is not corrected in this pass because its proc-macro share
has not been measured, and correcting a second instrument on the strength
of the first one's ratio is exactly the error this ADR exists to fix.
Filed as owed.
## Reserved for the maintainer
**AM-4a still cannot survive INTENT stage 2**, and this decision makes that
worse rather than better. `wgpu` + `winit` is 1,741,979 marginal lines
against a target now proposed at 161,000 — **10.8×**, up from 7×. ADR-0007
raised it; nothing here settles it. The correction below is honest
book-keeping, not headroom for stage 2, and it should not be read as
having made the stage-2 problem smaller.
## Consequences
- One fewer gate, and the gate registry gets its first retirement. That is
also **`GATE-REVIEW`'s first `caught` entry** — the registry's
`retire_if` says it must have *"retired, tightened, or forced the
re-justification of"* something by its review date, and it now has.
- Every AM-4a figure in this repo's history overstates the load by 36%.
Those documents are history and are not rewritten; the correction lives
in `specs/GameKernel.md` §4 and here.
- The batching diagnostic stays visible, so if in-pass batching ever
becomes possible the number will show it without a gate having to be
re-litigated first.

12
evidence/CB-EV-0001-game-kernel.md
View file

@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
# CB-EV-0001 — GROUND game kernel: acceptance evidence
> **Superseded measurement (ADR-0008 D2/D3, 2026-08-02).** The AM-4a
> figures below were taken with an instrument that counted proc-macro
> crates — 89,048 lines, 36.2% — which run in the compiler and never
> reach a binary. Corrected, the same tree measures **157,202** against
> a target moved to **161,000**. The numbers below are left as the
> record of what was measured then, and are no longer live facts.
Status: **T08 complete. AM-4 remediated and re-measured 2026-07-31.**
Recorded: 2026-07-31. Amended 2026-07-31 — §4 gains measured savings per
remediation option, and §5 corrects AM-12 from "uncomputable" to
@ -28,7 +36,7 @@ the property is false? A row can be *measured* and still enforce nothing.
| AM-1 rule coverage (GR only) | 100% of GR-rules | 58/58 (100%) | **met** | **yes** |
| AM-1b link, ground | 58 claimed rules named in the aggregate | 49/58 | **unmet** | reported |
| AM-1b link, kernel | 18 K-rules named in source | 15/18 | **unmet** | reported until 2026-08-31 |
| AM-4a dep weight, shipped runtime | ≤250,000 third-party lines | 246,250 (23 crates) | **met** | **yes** | <!-- fact:am4a_loc -->
| AM-4a dep weight, shipped runtime | ≤250,000 third-party lines | 246,250 (23 crates) | **met** | **yes** | <!-- historical: measured under the pre-ADR-0008 instrument; not a live fact -->
| AM-4b dep weight, dev toolchain | ≤350,000 third-party lines | 317,021 (29 crates) | **met** | **yes** | <!-- fact:am4b_loc -->
| AM-6 throughput | ≥100,000 events/s | 2,017,009 events/s (`make am6`) | **met, 20.2×** | **yes** — CB-WP-0006 T01 |
| AM-7 scaling | ≥0.9× at 20× workload | 1.08× | **met** | **no** — no code computes the ratio |
@ -194,7 +202,7 @@ retargeted onto third-party source under audit.
| Configuration | Crates | Third-party LOC | Target | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shipped runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | 246,250 | ≤250,000 | **met** | <!-- fact:am4a_loc --><!-- fact:am4a_target -->
| Shipped runtime (`--no-default-features`) | 23 | 246,250 | ≤250,000 | **met** | <!-- historical: measured under the pre-ADR-0008 instrument; not a live fact -->
| Dev toolchain (default features) | 29 | 317,021 | ≤350,000 | **met** | <!-- fact:am4b_loc --><!-- fact:am4b_target -->
| Our own source | — | 3,408 | — | — |

181
evidence/CB-EV-0011-instrument-corrections.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
# CB-EV-0011 — three instruments, and a rule about quoting yourself
CB-WP-0013 T04. Measured 2026-08-02 at `d2c3f34`. Pass kind `meta`,
tier **M** (chaos d4=3, no override). Declaration 8 of 12.
The pass was declared to fix two instruments. It found a third defect in
one of them, and a fourth in itself.
---
## 1. What was actually wrong with SH-3
The declaration named one defect. There were three, each deeper.
**1. The sample.** `--shape-budget` windows since the last commit and is
read while writing the evidence file — right after a commit, when the
window holds one or two responses. SH-1/SH-2 are location statistics and
survive that; SH-3 is a rate, and at n=2 its only values are 0%, 50%,
100%. Six evidence files quoted the resulting `0.0%` as a measurement.
**2. The claimed decline — which was this pass's own error.** The
declaration stated batching *"has got worse"*, citing 7.8–8.6% pinned
history against 1.1–6.3% per-pass windows. Those are differently-*placed*
windows, not different behaviour. **Withdrawn.** The pass declared to
correct a trusted-arithmetic error opened by committing one.
**3. The one that decided it.** Re-deriving batching from the raw
transcripts, independently of `cb-cost`:
| window | with tools | batched | rate |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| CB-WP-0011 pass | 54 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 16 | 6 | **37.5%** |
| CB-WP-0012 pass | 86 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 10 | 1 | **10.0%** |
| CB-WP-0013 so far | 10 | 0 | **0.0%** |
**Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses. 37.5% in one gap** — above
the floor the gate had been failing for seven passes.
Batching needs two tool calls whose inputs are known at once. That is
orientation: read four files, run three probes. Implementation has almost
none, because each step consumes the previous step's result. And SH-3's
window is *since the last commit*, which during a pass is implementation.
**The metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on.**
A gate meetable only by not working is not a target. SH-3 is retired as a
gate (ADR-0008 D1) and kept as a diagnostic over the whole session, where
it reads 5.8%.
**On the appearance of burying it:** retiring a metric that shows a
regression looks bad, and should. The answer is defect 2 — the regression
was an artifact and has been withdrawn, so there is no established decline
to bury. The number is still printed; only the verdict is gone. And the
floor was *not* moved to 6%, which is the thing `specs/SessionShape.md`
actually forbids.
## 2. A near-miss worth recording: I almost reported a defect that was not there
Midway through, a bounded window reported `53 tool calls in 53 responses;
0 in batched turns` — exactly one call per response, which looked like the
counter had collapsed. I had batched repeatedly in this session, so the
reading looked impossible.
It was correct. Re-deriving from the transcripts independently gave the
same 0, and the 131 batched responses that do exist all fall *outside*
those windows. The instrument was right and my expectation was wrong.
Recorded because the **false-accusation class** is already on this
project's record, and because the thing that stopped it was cheap: one
independent re-derivation before writing anything down. The cost of
checking was two minutes; the cost of not checking would have been an
evidence file alleging a defect in a tool that did not have one — and this
pass's whole subject is instruments reporting things that are not so.
## 3. AM-4a, corrected, gives back nothing
```
before 23 crates 246,250 lines [ok target 250,000] headroom 3,750
after 18 crates 157,202 lines [ok target 161,000] headroom 3,798
```
The instrument dropped 89,048 lines of proc-macro code that never reaches
a binary; **the target moved down with it** (ADR-0008 D3). Leaving the
target at 250,000 would have handed this project 89,048 lines of headroom
it did not earn, in the same change that revealed the error.
Three controls, all green: the exclusion drops **exactly** the five
expected crates, only ever removes and never adds, and is not a no-op.
**The DFD gate then caught the follow-on**, which is exactly what it is
for: three historical documents carried live `fact:am4a_loc` tags for a
number that had changed. They are history and were not rewritten — the
tags came off and both carry a supersession banner. A gate catching the
second-order consequence of a correction, unprompted, is the best evidence
yet that the registry is doing something.
**AM-4b is deliberately not corrected.** Its proc-macro share is
unmeasured, and correcting a second instrument on the strength of the
first one's ratio is the error this pass exists to fix. Owed.
## 4. The rule this pass should leave behind: stop quoting your own cost
| pass | reported mid-pass | final | understated by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CB-WP-0009 | $6.73 (CB-EV-0008) | $11.31 | 68% |
| CB-WP-0011 | $4.23 / 0.094 (CB-EV-0009) | $7.02 / 0.099 | 66% |
| CB-WP-0012 | $8.82 / 0.123 (CB-EV-0010) | **$14.52 / 0.150** | 65% |
Three for three, always low, by a strikingly consistent ~2/3. And this
time it **changed a conclusion**, not just a figure:
> CB-EV-0010 §5 reported the first priced tier comparison as *"0.123
> $/response at L against 0.099 at S — 24% more."* The final figures are
> **0.150 against 0.099 — 51% more.** The direction holds; the magnitude
> was understated by half.
Tier L is twice as expensive as that comparison claimed. It still found
errors of 25× and 85× in CB-WP-0012 and deleted a port that would have
been rewritten, so it still looks worth it — but the price of the argument
doubled and the evidence file that made it could not have known.
**Proposed rule, for the next pass to adopt or reject:** an evidence file
quotes the *previous* pass's final cost and does not quote its own. Its
own is knowable only after the commit that closes it, so any figure it
prints is a floor, and this project has now printed three of them and let
one carry a conclusion.
## 5. `cb-play`'s third mode never arrived
CB-EV-0009 §5 said a third mode would be the second use at which
`cb-play`'s single-binary shape should be reconsidered. CB-EV-0010 §6
recorded that it had arrived, with `--serve`, and that the pass had not
acted. **CB-EV-0010 was wrong.**
`--serve` is registered in `parse_args` as a *play flag*: it selects which
`Policy` fills a human seat, terminal or browser. The binary still has
exactly two modes — play a game, or read a recording — and they still take
disjoint flags. The trigger did not fire.
Carried for two passes, resolved here, and **stopped**: there is no split
to do, and the standing item is closed rather than deferred again.
## 6. Cost and shape
| pass | kind | responses | cost | $/response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CB-WP-0011 | product | 71 | $7.02 | 0.099 |
| CB-WP-0012 | product | 97 | $14.52 | 0.150 |
| CB-WP-0013 | meta | 34+ | $5.78+ | provisional, see §4 |
**Meta budget: 21%**, inside the soft 25%, without needing ADR-0006 D2's
repair exemption — though both halves would have qualified for it.
**SH-1 290,475 `[SOFT]`**, drifting toward the hard line; the remedy is a
compaction and it is free. **SH-3 now reads `insufficient sample (1
response with tool calls, need 14)`** — the fix working in production on
its first real reading, where the old instrument would have printed a
confident `0.0%`.
**`gate-review`: 0 due, 0 silent, 0 drifted.** Every gate in the registry
now has a `caught` entry, for the first time. GATE-REVIEW earned its own
by forcing SH-3's re-justification — asking what a gate had ever caught is
what exposed that it could not read what it gated on.
## 7. Open
- **AM-4b's proc-macro share is unmeasured.** §3.
- **The self-quoting rule in §4 is proposed, not adopted.**
- **AM-4a still cannot survive INTENT stage 2**, and this pass made the
ratio worse: `wgpu` + `winit` is 1,741,979 against a target now 161,000
— **10.8×**, up from 7×. Reserved for the maintainer, twice over now.
- **ADR-0007 Decision 3's acquisition rule** remains an argument awaiting
ratification.
- **INTENT stage 1 stays open**; the emitted JavaScript has still never
been executed.
- **Tier M's merged survey-and-ADR was the right weight.** One document,
no separate review, and the pass still found a defect deeper than the
one it was declared on — because the finding came from *measuring*, not
from an extra review round. That is one data point for the tier table
and against the assumption that depth comes from process weight.

8
facts.toml
View file

@ -10,14 +10,14 @@ generated = "2026-08-02"
pin = "fc76445"
[am4a_loc]
value = 246250
text = "246,250"
value = 157202
text = "157,202"
fmt = "{:,}"
by = "tools/dep-weight.py"
[am4a_target]
value = 250000
text = "250,000"
value = 161000
text = "161,000"
fmt = "{:,}"
by = "tools/dep-weight.py TARGETS"

9
gates.toml
View file

@ -36,14 +36,15 @@ caught = [
retire_if = "two consecutive passes never approach the soft line, or commits get small enough that the window is always trivial"
[[gate]]
id = "SH-1/SH-2/SH-3"
id = "SH-1/SH-2"
name = "session-shape budget"
target = "shape-budget"
checks = "mean and p90 context, and batching rate, since the last commit"
checks = "mean and p90 context since the last commit (SH-3 retired as a gate, ADR-0008 D1 — still reported as a diagnostic)"
added = "2026-08-01"
review_by = "2026-11-30"
caught = [
"first run fired HARD at 656,574 against a 300,000 ceiling, which is what prompted the compaction before CB-WP-0008",
"CB-WP-0013: SH-3 retired from this gate. Its window is *since the last commit*, which during a pass is implementation work, and batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — which is orientation work. Measured: 0 batched turns in 150 in-pass responses across three passes, against 37.5% in the gap between two of them. A floor the window structurally excludes is not a target (ADR-0008 D1)",
]
retire_if = "context stops correlating with cost, or the model's context handling makes the number unactionable"
@ -133,5 +134,7 @@ target = "gate-review"
checks = "gates past their review date, and gates that have caught nothing"
added = "2026-08-01"
review_by = "2026-12-31"
caught = []
caught = [
"CB-WP-0013: forced SH-3's re-justification and then its retirement. `make gate-review` had reported SH-3 as a standing breach for seven passes with zero actions taken, which is this registry's own ritual test (ADR-0006 D4); asking what it had ever caught is what exposed that the metric could not read above ~0% in the window it was gated on (ADR-0008 D1)",
]
retire_if = "it has retired, tightened, or forced the re-justification of nothing by its review date — then it is a ritual, and ADR-0006 D4 says rituals cash out or go"

4
specs/GameKernel.md
View file

@ -204,8 +204,8 @@ evidence lands in `evidence/CB-EV-0001-game-kernel.md` with no
| AM-1 | M-D1-COV: GR-rules covered by ≥1 passing scenario | no candidate has any (observation) | **100%** of GR + U rules | measured by runner report |
| AM-2 | M-D1-SPL: spec lines per rule in `games/ground` rules code (impl LOC ÷ rule count) | boardgame.io ~36 LOC for the 2-move synthetic game | ≤ 40 LOC/rule, paired with AM-1 (anti-gaming pair) | measured (tokei + rule count) |
| AM-3 | Synthetic-workload definition size: LOC to express the CB-RES-0001 synthetic game on our kernel | ~36 LOC (boardgame.io, measured) | ≤ 50 LOC | measured |
| AM-4a | M-D2-DEP: third-party LOC, **shipped runtime** (`--no-default-features`) | boardgame.io: 120 npm packages / 3.9M LOC | **≤ 250,000 lines** | measured (`make dep-weight`) |
| AM-4b | M-D2-DEP: third-party LOC, **dev toolchain** (default features) | as above | **≤ 350,000 lines** | measured (`make dep-weight`) |
| AM-4a | M-D2-DEP: third-party LOC, **shipped runtime** (`--no-default-features --edges normal,no-proc-macro`) | boardgame.io: 120 npm packages / 3.9M LOC | **≤ 161,000 lines** (ADR-0008 D3, was 250,000) | measured (`make dep-weight`) |
| AM-4b | M-D2-DEP: third-party LOC, **dev toolchain** (default features) | as above | **≤ 350,000 lines** — *proc-macro share unmeasured; correction owed (ADR-0008 D2)* | measured (`make dep-weight`) |
| ~~AM-4c~~ | M-D2-DEP: own source per third-party 100k lines | — | **WITHDRAWN from the acceptance table 2026-08-01 (CB-WP-0006 T04)** — retained as a reported diagnostic in `make dep-weight`; see §5a | diagnostic |
| AM-5 | M-D2-BLD: clean release build of headless workspace | n/a (npm install ~seconds; not comparable) | ≤ 60 s on bnt-lap001, recorded not gated | measured |
| AM-6 | M-D3-THR: applied events/s, synthetic workload, same machine | boardgame.io ~1,100–1,900 moves/s (best config, degrading) | **≥ 100,000/s** (stipulated target, ADR-0002) | measured |

41
specs/SessionShape.md
View file

@ -136,6 +136,47 @@ workplan — the failure mode InnerLoop v1.1 rule 13 exists for, and the
`history/260731-inner-loop-rule-audit.md` identified as having no
executable defence.
### Correction (CB-WP-0013 T01): SH-3 was never read as measured
**Six evidence files quote `SH-3 0.0%`, and none of them measured it.**
`cb-cost --shape-budget` reports the window **since the last commit**, and
it is read while writing the evidence file — immediately *after* a commit,
when that window holds one or two responses. SH-1 and SH-2 are location
statistics and survive a sample of two. SH-3 is a **rate**, and at n=2 its
only possible values are 0%, 50% and 100%. One window, three metrics, and
it is only wrong for one of them.
Measured over real per-pass windows instead:
| window since | responses | SH-3 |
|---|---:|---:|
| `0d2ab22` | 115 | 6.2% |
| `6fb0aea` | 113 | 6.3% |
| `331e7e9` | 95 | 1.1% |
| `c5fa610` | 74 | 1.4% |
| `883b608` | 70 | 1.4% |
| `84d6886` | 24 | 4.3% |
The substantive claim survives — SH-3 is badly unmet — but the constant
0.0% hid something the real numbers show: against the **7.8–8.6%** pinned
above, **batching has got worse**, and a metric frozen at a constant could
not have shown a trend at all. Six passes reported a breach and the breach
was moving underneath them.
**This is the ninth recorded instance of the trusted-arithmetic class, and
the second in this same metric** — the eighth is the `0 of 330 tool calls`
figure corrected immediately above. SH-3 is the number this project keeps
getting wrong, which is itself a reason to doubt the metric rather than the
behaviour (§SH-3 disposition).
**The fix**, `cb-cost.py` `sh3_line()`: below a minimum sample the tool
prints `insufficient sample` and no verdict. The floor is derived, not
round — if the true rate were exactly the 20% target, the chance of seeing
zero batched turns in `n` responses is `0.8^n`; at **n = 14** that is 4.4%,
so "0 batched in 14" rules out a target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below that
the tool has nothing to say and now says so.
At an 8.6% batching rate there is real headroom, but the saving is bounded:
eliminating every avoidable single-call turn would remove at most a few
percent of turns, worth roughly $2–4 on a $93 pass. **Batch because it is

83
tools/cb-cost.py
View file

@ -624,8 +624,15 @@ def render(rep, by_task=False, composition=False):
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-1_mean_context']<=200_000 else 'FAIL'} target 200,000]")
print(f"{indent}SH-2 p90 context {sh['SH-2_p90_context']:>12,.0f} tok "
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-2_p90_context']<=300_000 else 'FAIL'} target 300,000]")
print(f"{indent}SH-3 batching rate {100*sh['SH-3_batching_rate']:>11.1f}% "
f"[{'ok ' if sh['SH-3_batching_rate']>=0.20 else 'FAIL'} target 20.0%]")
# Same guard as the budget path: a rate a window cannot support
# must not be printed as though it were measured.
if sh["responses_with_tools"] < SH3_MIN_SAMPLE:
print(f"{indent}SH-3 batching rate insufficient sample "
f"[{sh['responses_with_tools']} with tool calls, "
f"need {SH3_MIN_SAMPLE}]")
else:
print(f"{indent}SH-3 batching rate {100*sh['SH-3_batching_rate']:>11.1f}% "
f"[diagnostic, no floor — ADR-0008 D1]")
print(f"{indent} {sh['tool_calls']} tool calls in "
f"{sh['responses_with_tools']} responses; "
f"{sh['calls_in_batched_turns']} in batched turns")
@ -786,6 +793,33 @@ def self_test():
finally:
os.unlink(empty)
# SH-3 minimum sample (CB-WP-0013 T01). Three checks, because the
# guard has three ways to be useless: it could refuse everything, it
# could refuse nothing, or its refusal could be mistaken for a rate.
def win(n_with_tools, n_batched):
return {"responses_with_tools": n_with_tools,
"SH-3_batching_rate": (n_batched / n_with_tools) if n_with_tools else 0.0}
below = sh3_line(win(2, 0))
at = sh3_line(win(SH3_MIN_SAMPLE, 0))
good = sh3_line(win(20, 8))
check("SH-3 refuses a window too small to carry a rate",
"insufficient sample" in below and "%" not in below,
below.strip())
check("SH-3 still reports at exactly the minimum sample",
"insufficient sample" not in at and "0.0%" in at, at.strip())
check("SH-3 reports a real rate, with no verdict attached",
"40.0%" in good and "no floor" in good and "FAIL" not in good,
good.strip())
# ADR-0008 D1: the gate is gone. A verdict reappearing here means a
# floor has been reintroduced without an ADR.
check("SH-3 carries no pass/fail verdict",
not any(v in sh3_line(win(40, 1)) for v in ("SOFT", "HARD", "FAIL", "[ok")),
sh3_line(win(40, 1)).strip())
# The one that matters: a refusal must not read as a measured zero.
check("a refusal is distinguishable from a genuine 0.0%",
below != sh3_line(win(SH3_MIN_SAMPLE, 0)))
# AC-7: the subagent tree is discovered by the path globs.
slug = "-home-worsch-clay-borg"
paths = transcript_paths(slug)
@ -809,6 +843,47 @@ def self_test():
SHAPE_SOFT = {"SH-1": 200_000, "SH-2": 300_000}
SHAPE_HARD = {"SH-1": 300_000, "SH-2": 450_000}
# CB-WP-0013 T01. SH-1 and SH-2 are location statistics and survive a
# two-response window. SH-3 is a RATE, and at n=2 its only possible values
# are 0%, 50% and 100% — so reading it right after a commit, which is when
# the evidence file is written, reports 0.0% almost regardless of
# behaviour. Six evidence files quoted that 0.0% as a measurement; the real
# per-pass figure was 1.1-6.3%.
#
# The floor is derived, not round. If the true rate were exactly the 20%
# target, the chance of observing ZERO batched turns in n responses is
# 0.8^n. At n = 14 that is 4.4%, so "0 batched in 14" rules out a
# target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below 14 the tool has nothing to say and
# must say that instead of printing a number.
SH3_MIN_SAMPLE = 14
def sh3_line(win, min_sample=SH3_MIN_SAMPLE):
"""SH-3 as a DIAGNOSTIC — no floor, no verdict (ADR-0008 D1).
Retired as a gate because the window and the metric are systematically
anti-correlated: batching needs two tool calls whose inputs are known
at once, which is orientation work, and this window is *since the last
commit*, which during a pass is implementation work. Measured across
three passes: 0 batched turns in 150 in-pass responses, against 37.5%
in the gap between two of them. A floor the window structurally
excludes is not a target.
The minimum-sample refusal is kept. A diagnostic may be ignored; it
may not be wrong, and a rate over two responses is wrong.
Returns the line rather than printing it so both branches are testable
without capturing stdout — a guard that can only be checked by reading
output is a guard that will be checked by nobody.
"""
n = win["responses_with_tools"]
if n < min_sample:
return (f" SH-3 batching insufficient sample "
f"[----] {n} response(s) with tool calls, need {min_sample}")
rate = win["SH-3_batching_rate"]
return (f" SH-3 batching {100*rate:>9.1f}% "
f"[diag] no floor — retired as a gate, ADR-0008 D1")
def shape_budget(slug):
"""SH-* for the window since the last commit, with soft/hard verdicts."""
@ -842,9 +917,7 @@ def shape_budget(slug):
print(f" {key} {label} {val:>10,.0f} tok [{mark}] "
f"soft {soft:,} / hard {hard:,}")
breach = max(breach, 0 if val <= soft else (1 if val <= hard else 2))
rate = win["SH-3_batching_rate"]
print(f" SH-3 batching {100*rate:>9.1f}% "
f"[{'ok ' if rate >= 0.20 else 'SOFT'}] floor 20.0%")
print(sh3_line(win))
if breach >= 2:
print("\n HARD — compact before continuing. Context this size costs "

40
tools/dep-weight.py
View file

@ -28,15 +28,30 @@ import sys
from repo import cargo_bin, enter_root
PACKAGE = "games-ground"
# ADR-0008 D2. `--edges normal` includes proc-macro crates, which run in
# the compiler and never reach a shipped binary — 89,048 lines, 36.2% of
# what this tool used to call "what a game ships", `syn` alone 66,916. The
# shipped-runtime configuration now excludes them.
#
# AM-4b is deliberately NOT corrected here: its proc-macro share has not
# been measured, and correcting a second instrument on the strength of the
# first one's ratio is the error this change exists to fix.
PROC_MACRO_EXCLUDED = ["--edges", "normal,no-proc-macro"]
CONFIGS = {
"shipped-runtime": ["--no-default-features"],
"shipped-runtime": ["--no-default-features"] + PROC_MACRO_EXCLUDED,
"dev-toolchain": [],
}
# AM-4a / AM-4b targets from specs/GameKernel.md §4. Breaching one fails
# the build: a gate that only reports is a suggestion.
# ADR-0008 D3: the target moves down with the instrument. Leaving it at
# 250,000 against a corrected 157,202 would hand this project 89,048 lines
# of headroom it did not earn, in the same change that revealed the error.
# 161,000 keeps ~2.4% of room where 250,000 kept ~1.5% — the small
# rounding up is the only thing this decision gives back, because a target
# with 1.5% of room fails on a dependency's patch release.
TARGETS = {
"shipped-runtime": 250_000,
"shipped-runtime": 161_000,
"dev-toolchain": 350_000,
}
@ -55,8 +70,8 @@ def crates(extra_args):
)
sys.exit(1)
out = subprocess.run(
[cargo, "tree", "-p", PACKAGE, "--edges", "normal", "--prefix", "none"]
+ extra_args,
[cargo, "tree", "-p", PACKAGE, "--prefix", "none"]
+ (extra_args if "--edges" in extra_args else ["--edges", "normal"] + extra_args),
capture_output=True,
text=True,
check=True,
@ -125,6 +140,23 @@ def self_test():
check("cargo resolves without caller PATH setup", bool(cargo_bin()),
cargo_bin() or "NOT FOUND")
# ADR-0008 D2. The exclusion must remove exactly the proc-macro crates
# and nothing else — a flag that quietly dropped a runtime dependency
# would shrink the number in the direction this metric can be gamed.
with_pm = crates(["--no-default-features"])
without_pm = crates(["--no-default-features"] + PROC_MACRO_EXCLUDED)
dropped = set(with_pm) - set(without_pm)
check("the proc-macro exclusion drops exactly the expected crates",
dropped == {"syn", "quote", "proc-macro2", "unicode-ident", "serde_derive"},
f"dropped {sorted(dropped)}")
check("the exclusion only ever removes crates, never adds",
set(without_pm) <= set(with_pm),
f"{len(with_pm)} -> {len(without_pm)}")
# And it must actually remove something: an exclusion that excluded
# nothing would leave the old figure while claiming the new meaning.
check("the exclusion is not a no-op",
len(dropped) > 0, f"{len(dropped)} crate(s) dropped")
check("targets defined for every configuration",
set(TARGETS) == set(CONFIGS) and all(
isinstance(v, int) and v > 0 for v in TARGETS.values()),

271
workplans/CB-WP-0013-instrument-corrections.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
---
id: CB-WP-0013
kind: meta
title: "Two instruments that were wrong, and the record they wrote"
status: done
---
# Purpose
```
structural tier M (changes how the loop constrains its own operation:
a budget instrument and a gate floor — InnerLoop
v1.6, ADR-0006 D5)
chaos d4 = 3 → no override
declared tier M
```
Declaration 8 of 12 in the calibration window. Tier M means the survey and
the ADR merge into one document and the adversarial review is optional.
**Meta budget: 0% of the trailing three**, so this pass is in budget
without the ADR-0006 D2 repair exemption — though it would qualify for it,
since both halves repair an instrument that reports a breach.
## Why now
CB-WP-0012 ended owing two corrections, and one of them turns out to be
larger than it was filed as.
### SH-3 has never read what six evidence files say it read
CB-EV-0010 §5 states *"SH-3 has now read 0.0% for six consecutive passes"*
and calls it the oldest unargued number in the project. The number is an
artifact.
`--shape-budget` measures **the window since the last commit**, and it is
read while writing the evidence file — immediately *after* a commit, when
that window holds one or two responses. SH-1 and SH-2 are location
statistics and survive a sample of two. **SH-3 is a rate**, and at n=2 its
only possible values are 0%, 50% and 100%. One window, three metrics, and
it is only wrong for one of them.
Measured over real per-pass windows instead:
| window since | responses | SH-3 |
|---|---:|---:|
| `0d2ab22` | 115 | 6.2% |
| `6fb0aea` | 113 | 6.3% |
| `331e7e9` | 95 | 1.1% |
| `c5fa610` | 74 | 1.4% |
| `883b608` | 70 | 1.4% |
| `84d6886` | 24 | 4.3% |
So the substantive claim survives — SH-3 is badly unmet — but **the figure
quoted in six evidence files was never the measurement**. Worse, the real
numbers say something the artifact hid: the historical rate pinned in
`specs/SessionShape.md` is **7.8–8.6%**, and these windows are **1.1–6.3%**.
Batching has got *worse*, and a metric stuck at a constant 0.0% could not
show a trend at all.
### AM-4a overstates every figure it has ever reported by 36%
ADR-0007 Decision 4, filed and unimplemented. AM-4a counts
`--edges normal`, which includes proc-macro crates that run in the compiler
and never reach a binary: **89,048 lines, 36.2%** of the shipped-runtime
figure, `syn` alone 66,916.
## Task: fix SH-3's instrument, and correct the record
```task
id: CB-WP-0013-T01
status: done
priority: high
```
A rate needs a sample. `--shape-budget` must **refuse to report SH-3**
below a stated minimum rather than print a number the window cannot
support — `insufficient sample (n responses)`, not `0.0%`.
**The choice to argue, not assume:** whether SH-3 should instead be
windowed differently from SH-1/SH-2 — over the pass rather than since the
last commit — since it is the only one of the three that a two-response
window destroys. Pick one and say why the other was rejected.
**Controls.** A minimum-sample rule is exactly the kind of guard that can
be satisfied vacuously: assert that a window *above* the floor still
reports a rate, that one below reports the refusal, and that the refusal
is distinguishable from a genuine 0.0%. Mutate each.
**Correct the record.** Six evidence files quote 0.0%. They are history and
are not rewritten; the correction is recorded once, where a reader will
find it, and named as what it is — the same class as CB-WP-0002's
"0 of 330 tool calls were batched", which `specs/SessionShape.md` §4
already records as the eighth trusted-arithmetic instance. **This is the
ninth, and it is in the same metric.** That coincidence is worth a
sentence: SH-3 is the number this project keeps getting wrong.
**Done 2026-08-02.** `cb-cost.py` gains `sh3_line()`: below a minimum
sample it prints `insufficient sample` and **no verdict**.
**The window was kept, not split.** SH-3 could instead have been given a
per-pass window while SH-1/SH-2 kept the since-last-commit one. Rejected:
the budget's stated purpose is the *open remainder* since the last commit
— the only thing a live budget can fire on — and giving one of three
metrics a different window makes "the window" ambiguous in a tool that
three specs cite. Refusing to report is honest and keeps one window.
**The floor is derived, not round.** If the true rate were exactly the 20%
target, the chance of observing zero batched turns in `n` responses is
`0.8^n`. At **n = 14** that is 4.4%, so "0 batched in 14" rules out a
target-meeting rate at ~95%. Below 14 the tool has nothing to say.
Four controls, three mutations, each red for its stated reason:
| mutation | result |
|---|---|
| the guard never refuses | `SH-3 refuses a window too small` red, *and* `a refusal is distinguishable from a genuine 0.0%` red |
| the guard always refuses | reporting at exactly the minimum, and a real 40% rate, both red |
| the refusal prints as `0.0%` | `refuses a window too small` red — the case the six evidence files actually hit |
The correction is recorded in `specs/SessionShape.md` §4, beside the
eighth instance, with the real per-pass figures.
## Task: argue SH-3's floor, or move it
```task
id: CB-WP-0013-T02
status: done
priority: high
```
The declaration CB-EV-0010 said was owed. `specs/SessionShape.md` is
explicit that the 20% floor was set above the measured rate deliberately
and that *"whether 20% is reachable or arbitrary is unknown until a pass
tries"*. Seven passes have now reported it and none has tried.
Decide, with the real numbers rather than the artifact:
- is 20% reachable, and at what cost to how the work is actually done;
- is the measured decline from 7.8–8.6% to 1.1–6.3% a behavioural change
worth reversing, or an artifact of tier-L passes doing more sequential
reading than tier-S ones;
- **and the honest option: retire SH-3.** `specs/SessionShape.md` §4 puts
the ceiling at **$2–4 on a $93 pass** and says *"batch because it is
free, not because it is the lever."* A floor that is 3–20× the measured
rate, cannot be moved by the party measured, and is worth single-digit
dollars is a candidate for `retire_if`, not a standing breach.
**Do not retarget to match the measurement.** `specs/SessionShape.md`
already forbids exactly that, and CB-WP-0003 T07 exists to prevent it. If
the floor moves, it moves on an argument about what batching is worth, and
the argument is written down before the number changes.
**Done 2026-08-02.** [ADR-0008](../decisions/ADR-0008-instrument-corrections.md)
D1 — **SH-3 is retired as a gate and kept as a diagnostic.**
Investigating it turned up a third defect, deeper than the two this
workplan was declared on. Measured by re-deriving batching from the raw
transcripts, independently of `cb-cost`:
| window | with tools | batched | rate |
|---|---:|---:|---:|
| CB-WP-0011 pass | 54 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 16 | 6 | **37.5%** |
| CB-WP-0012 pass | 86 | 0 | **0.0%** |
| gap → next declaration | 10 | 1 | **10.0%** |
| CB-WP-0013 so far | 10 | 0 | **0.0%** |
**Zero batched turns in 150 in-pass responses; 37.5% in one gap.**
Batching needs two calls whose inputs are known at once — orientation
work. Implementation consumes each step's result before the next. And
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.**
**And this workplan's own Purpose was wrong.** It stated batching *"has
got worse"* (7.8–8.6% historical against 1.1–6.3% per-pass). Those come
from differently-placed windows, not different behaviour. Withdrawn — the
same class of error, in the pass written to correct it.
The retirement is *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, established before the disposition. The number is still
reported; only the verdict is gone.
## Task: correct AM-4a to count what ships
```task
id: CB-WP-0013-T03
status: done
priority: high
```
ADR-0007 Decision 4. `tools/dep-weight.py` counts
`--edges normal,no-proc-macro`.
**The targets do not move with the instrument.** Correcting a metric that
reports 246,250 down to 157,202 while leaving the target at 250,000 hands
this project 89,048 lines of headroom it did not earn, in the same commit
that reveals the error. Either the target moves down by the same amount
the instrument does, or the pass states plainly why the extra headroom is
legitimate. It is not obviously legitimate; argue it or give it back.
**Positive control.** `dep-weight.py` already has the guard that an
unlocatable crate must not silently count as zero. The new flag must not
be able to drop crates it should have counted: assert that the proc-macro
set is exactly the five expected crates and that removing the flag
restores the old figure.
**Done 2026-08-02.** ADR-0008 D2/D3.
```
shipped-runtime 18 crates 157,202 lines [ok target 161,000]
```
**The target moved down with the instrument**, 250,000 → 161,000, so the
correction hands back essentially nothing: headroom goes from 3,750 to
3,798. 161,000 keeps ~2.4% of room where 250,000 kept ~1.5%; that small
rounding up is the only thing given back, because a target with 1.5% of
room fails on a dependency's patch release.
Three controls, all green: the exclusion drops **exactly** the five
expected crates, only ever removes and never adds, and is not a no-op.
**The DFD gate then caught the follow-on**, which is what it is for: three
historical documents carried live `fact:am4a_loc` tags for a number that
had changed. They are history and were not rewritten — the tags were
removed and both documents carry a supersession banner instead.
**AM-4b is deliberately not corrected.** Its proc-macro share is
unmeasured, and correcting a second instrument on the strength of the
first one's ratio is the error this task exists to fix. Filed as owed.
## Task: evidence
```task
id: CB-WP-0013-T04
status: done
priority: medium
```
`evidence/CB-EV-0011-instrument-corrections.md`.
Carry: whether tier M's merged survey-and-ADR was the right weight for two
instrument corrections; the cost of a meta pass immediately after two
product passes; and the standing question of whether **three** consecutive
evidence files reporting their own pass's cost low means the loop should
simply stop quoting it.
Also carry the one that is now overdue: **`cb-play` is three modes in one
binary.** CB-EV-0009 §5 named the third mode as the trigger to reconsider
the shape, CB-EV-0010 §6 recorded that it had arrived and that the pass
did not act. Either do it or state why not, and stop carrying it.
**Done 2026-08-02.**
[CB-EV-0011](../evidence/CB-EV-0011-instrument-corrections.md).
- **The self-quoting rule is proposed.** Three passes have now reported
their own cost mid-flight and all three were low by ~2/3 — and this
time it changed a conclusion: CB-EV-0010's tier comparison said L cost
*24% more* than S; the final figures say **51%**.
- **`cb-play`'s third mode never arrived.** `--serve` is a *play flag*
selecting which `Policy` fills a human seat. The binary still has two
modes. CB-EV-0010 §6 was wrong; the item is **closed, not deferred**.
- **A near-miss recorded**: an instrument reading that looked impossible
turned out to be correct, and one independent re-derivation before
writing anything stopped a false accusation.
- **Tier M was the right weight** — one merged document, no separate
review, and the pass still found a defect deeper than the one it was
declared on, because the finding came from measuring rather than from
an extra review round.