# 2026-07-31 — InnerLoop v1.1 rule enforceability audit

CB-WP-0003 T01. Every rule in `specs/InnerLoop.md` v1.1 classified as
**executable** (a command fails when it is violated), **checkable** (a
human or agent can verify it cheaply and objectively in review), or
**decorative** (neither) — and, per the revised task, tagged with the
**failure class it catches**.

## Failure classes on record

Seven error instances across three classes, from
`history/260731-inner-loop-retrospective.md` and
`history/260731-cost-accounting-retrospective.md`:

| tag | class | instances |
|---|---|---|
| **HDN** | harness-does-nothing — a run succeeds while performing no work | 4 |
| **TA** | trusted arithmetic — a correct-looking sum over data that really exists | 2 |
| **SSB** | same-sample blind spot — a property verified on the large sample, assumed on the small | 1 |

The reason for tagging: a rule that catches a class no observed error
belongs to is a candidate for deletion even when it is perfectly
executable, and a class with no rule covering it is where the next rule
should go.

## The audit

Status after this pass. `loop-lint` = `tools/loop-lint.py`, new here.

| # | Rule | Class | Status | Enforced by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No implementation code before the ADR is committed | — | **checkable** | git history vs ADR date; not automated (see §Deferred) |
| 2 | Tier declared before work starts | — | **executable** | `loop-lint` tier-declared |
| 3 | Chaos roll recorded every time, even when it changes nothing | — | **executable** | `loop-lint` chaos-recorded |
| 4 | Invariants bind at every tier regardless of roll | — | executable (elsewhere) | `make all` — determinism tests, `disallowed_types` |
| 5 | Survey names a benchmark-to-beat per dimension | — | **checkable** | review; a regex cannot judge whether a number is a benchmark |
| 6 | Cited-only baselines cap the verdict at `parity` | TA | **decorative → checkable** | see §Changes |
| 7 | Tier-L survey gets one round of adversarial review | SSB | **executable** | `loop-lint` review-trail |
| 8 | Review trail: research/challenge/response in `history/` | SSB | **executable** | `loop-lint` review-trail |
| 9 | ADR states expected advantage per dimension | — | **checkable** | review |
| 10 | Spec carries an acceptance-metrics table | — | **checkable** | review |
| 11 | Every metric names its instrument | HDN | **checkable** | review; naming is textual, existence is not |
| 12 | **v1.1** The instrument must exist and emit its own target | TA | **checkable** | review; see §Deferred for why not yet executable |
| 13 | **v1.1** Inherited numbers are re-derived before use as a target | TA | **decorative** | nothing can detect a quoted number |
| 14 | A metric is checked against contracts in its own spec | — | **checkable** | review |
| 15 | Harness asserts it performed the work it reports | HDN | **executable** | `cargo bench -- --test`, cb-sim empty-run, `--self-test` |
| 16 | Fail loudly rather than report when the assertion fails | HDN | **executable** | same |
| 17 | Divisor pinned by a test | HDN | **executable** | `bench_shape` test module |
| 18 | A number that cannot prove its work is void | HDN | **executable** | same as 15 |
| 19 | **v1.1** Every reporting tool exposes `--self-test` | HDN, SSB | **executable** | `loop-lint` self-test |
| 20 | `--self-test` names a failure it detects, not the happy path | HDN | **checkable** | review; see §Deferred |
| 21 | Evidence names its disanalogies | — | **checkable** | review |
| 22 | `unmeasured` illegal in an evidence file | — | **executable** | `loop-lint` evidence-unmeasured |
| 23 | No silently-ignored input | HDN | **checkable** | review |
| 24 | Decisions get commands, not defaults | — | **checkable** | review |
| 25 | Scaffolds are exercised or marked | HDN | **checkable** | review |
| 26 | Coverage gates that count tags say so | — | **checkable** | review |
| 27 | Whole-file loadability (~400 lines) | — | **executable** | `loop-lint` loadability |
| 28 | Structured over prose | — | **decorative** | kept as guidance, marked |
| 29 | One command surface | — | **checkable** | review |
| 30 | Self-contained tasks | — | **checkable** | review |
| 31 | Evidence or it didn't happen | — | **checkable** | review |
| 32 | Token discipline per the global budget policy | — | **decorative — dead** | nothing; CB-WP-0003 T05 replaces it |
| 33–41 | Definition-of-done checklist (9 items) | mixed | **checkable** | review; each maps to an artifact whose existence is testable — see §Deferred |

Counts: **11 executable**, **22 checkable**, **4 decorative** (one of
which is dead policy).

## What the audit found by running

`tools/loop-lint.py` was written to make rules 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 22 and 27
executable. On its first run it produced **three findings, all real, none
previously visible**:

1. **`specs/ArchitectureBlueprint.md` is 543 lines** against a ~400-line
   limit the loop has stated since v0.2. Nobody noticed because nothing
   measured it. Disposition: split (§Changes).
2. **`tools/dep-weight.py` has no `--self-test`.** It has positive-control
   logic — it refuses to report when a crate cannot be located — but
   nothing verifies that control still works.
3. **`tools/rule-coverage.py` has no `--self-test`.** Same shape.

Findings 2 and 3 are exactly the recursion this workplan is about: the
positive-control rule was applied to benchmarks and to the newest tool,
and not to the two older tools that report AM-1 and AM-4 numbers into
evidence files.

## Changes made in this task

- **Rule 27 made executable and the violation fixed.**
  `ArchitectureBlueprint.md` split at its own section boundaries into
  `ArchitectureBlueprint.md` (§1–8, the stack) and
  `ArchitectureRuntime.md` (§9–15, runtime/tooling/process), linked both
  ways.
- **Rules 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 22 made executable** via `tools/loop-lint.py`,
  wired as `make loop-lint` and into `make all` and CI.
- **Rule 6 (parity cap) demoted from decorative to checkable** by stating
  the check explicitly: an evidence row citing a baseline whose provenance
  is `cited` may not carry verdict `better`. That is mechanical against the
  survey's provenance column and is queued for `loop-lint` once a second
  evidence file exists to test it against — writing a matcher with one
  sample is the SSB error this pass is trying to stop making.
- **Rule 28 (structured over prose) demoted to guidance**, with that
  status stated in the spec. It is a style preference; nothing can judge
  it, and leaving it phrased as a requirement is the false assurance this
  audit exists to remove.
- **Rule 32 (token discipline) marked dead** in place, pointing at
  CB-WP-0003 T05. It is not deleted yet because deleting it is T05's
  decision, but it now reads as dead rather than as a live control.

## Deferred, with reasons

- **Rule 1 (ADR gate) is checkable but not automated.** A mechanical check
  needs a map from capability → source paths, which does not exist. Cheap
  version worth doing later: require every `specs/<X>.md` to reference an
  ADR, and every ADR to precede the first commit touching its capability's
  directory.
- **Rule 12 (instrument emits its target) resists automation for now.**
  Detecting "this number was typed rather than emitted" requires the tool's
  output to be committed alongside the spec. The tractable form is to
  require acceptance targets to appear verbatim in a committed tool output
  file; deferred to T02 rather than guessed at here.
- **Rule 20 (self-test names a failure) is genuinely checkable only.** A
  self-test that asserts `True` passes any structural check. Reviewing the
  assertions is the control, and CB-WP-0002's AC-9 is the model: pin the
  exact defect that occurred.
- **Rule 13 (re-derive inherited numbers) has no mechanical form at all**
  and is left decorative *deliberately* — with its status stated. It is
  the rule that caught the largest error in CB-WP-0002 ($248.46 → $92.21),
  which is the counter-example to this workplan's own hypothesis: **an
  unenforceable rule was the most valuable one in the pass.** The
  hypothesis "a rule that cannot be executed is not a rule" is therefore
  wrong as stated. The correct version is narrower: *a rule that cannot be
  executed cannot be relied on to fire, so it must not be the only defence
  for a class that matters.*

## Open items raised by this audit

- ~~**AM-4a / AM-4b are unratified retargets.**~~ **Discharged
  2026-07-31** by [ADR-0004](../decisions/ADR-0004-am4-ratification.md),
  ratified by the maintainer. Values unchanged; the ADR supplies the
  future-binding argument the test requires (AM-4a leaves 1.5% headroom,
  AM-4b 10.4%, and both measure a quantity that only grows by deliberate
  choice).

## Class coverage — where the gaps are

| class | executable rules covering it | assessment |
|---|---|---|
| HDN | 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 | **well covered.** Five executable rules; the class that started this. |
| TA | none | **uncovered by any executable rule.** Rules 6, 12, 13 are checkable or decorative. This is the largest gap, and it is the class with the second-most instances. |
| SSB | 7, 8, 19 | **partly covered.** Rule 19 caught the one instance, by accident of running over all data rather than by design. Rules 7/8 enforce that a review *happened*, not that it sampled differently. T03 addresses the design gap. |

The honest read: **the loop is hardened against the class it has already
suffered most from, and has no executable defence against the class that
produced its largest single error.** Trusted arithmetic is caught today
only by re-derivation, which is a discipline, not a gate.