tegwick
05d1a9aada
The condition is met and the tally was verified rather than recalled. ADR-0017 D2 named window 3 as the decider; windows 2 and 3 each produced exactly one override and each changed nothing. Every roll in window 3 was cross-checked against the workplan that made it, because the last time this project tallied chaos rolls from memory it was wrong and asserted the wrong figure four times (F23). All twelve agree. But meeting the condition is not evidence. P(an override changes nothing) is 1/3, and each window had exactly one override, so the condition fires on a 1/9 coincidence. ADR-0017 restated it to be REACHABLE and made it weak in the process; reachability was checked and discriminating power was not. Worse, it measures the wrong subject. It asks whether an override changed the tier; the question is whether changing the tier helped. Under it, a die that always changed the tier could never be retired however useless its changes were. The real ground is stronger. Four overrides across roughly forty declarations, and the mechanism's value has never once been demonstrated. The one substantive intervention dropped CB-WP-0011 from a structural L to S, and that work then needed CB-WP-0016 and CB-WP-0017 to fix defects a human found by playing. Not offered as causation — a tier is process weight, not a guarantee — but it is the only evidence we have about an override's consequences and it points the wrong way. And the purpose has no live evidence of need: 17 M, 11 S, 4 L across every workplan, with the only two structural/declared mismatches being the window-1 overrides themselves. Tier declaration has not ossified. So: retired, with nothing replacing it. Adding a successor to guard against ossification that has not occurred would invent a gate for an instance we do not have. The revival trigger is stated: tiers collapsing toward one value, or a pass declaring below its structural tier to dodge a review. InnerLoop loses the chaos paragraph, loop-lint loses the chaos-recorded check — a check that outlives its rule becomes an obstruction — and its self-test now asserts the opposite: a note with no roll must pass. ChaosRollHistory is closed. Window 4 ends incomplete at four declarations, the last of which is this one, rolled because the rule was still in force. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
5.6 KiB
Chaos roll — window records
CLOSED 2026-08-08. The mechanism is retired (ADR-0021). This file is history and takes no new entries.
Four windows, four overrides, no demonstrated benefit. The retirement condition was met — and was itself wrong: it fires on a 1/9 coincidence, and it measured whether an override changed the tier rather than whether the change helped. The real ground was D4's tally, not the condition.
One entry per chaos window. Split out of InnerLoopReference.md when that
file crossed the loadability limit: this is a log that grows, and a log
inside a reference eventually crowds out the reference.
The rule itself lives in InnerLoop.md §Loop tiers; the
current window's terms are there. This is the history the verdicts rest on.
Window 1 (d4, closed 2026-08-02): 12 declarations, 2 overrides, one each way, and both changed the outcome. The mechanism was kept and the rate dropped d4 → d8 (CB-EV-0015 §5, CB-EV-0016 §4).
Window 2 (d8, 2026-08-03 → 2026-08-07): 12 declarations, of which 11 rolled at d8 — declaration 1 (CB-WP-0018) opened the window and rolled at the old d4. Expected 8s: 1.375. Observed: 1.
| decl | pass | roll | effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0018 | d4 = 3 | opened the window at the old rate |
| 2 | CB-WP-0019 | d8 = 5 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0020 | d8 = 8 | override — drew S over a structural S: changed nothing |
| 4 | CB-WP-0021 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5–9 | CB-WP-0022…0026 | d8 = 6 ×5 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0027 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 11 | CB-WP-0028 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0029 | d8 = 4 | — |
Verdict (ADR-0017): the rate is behaving as designed. One override against 1.375 expected is not a shortage of evidence.
Why the retirement condition changed. "An override changes nothing twice running" requires a consecutive pair, each with P = 1/3, so ~12 overrides are expected before one occurs — at ~1.4 overrides per window, ~9 windows or roughly 100 declarations. A gate that cannot cash out on any realistic horizon is decoration (ADR-0006 D3). It is now evaluated per window, needing two consecutive qualifying windows: ~24 declarations rather than ~100.
Four evidence files claimed window 2 produced zero overrides. They were wrong, and each cited the one before rather than counting. See F23 — the failure is a claim with no source, asserted once and repeated, which no gate here detects.
A post-hoc observation, deliberately not acted on. Declarations 5–9
rolled six five times running (~1 in 370 for some run of five in eleven
rolls). shuf was tested over 200 rapid successive calls and looks
uniform, longest run three. Recorded so a future window can check whether
it recurs; not evidence of anything on its own.
Window 3 — opened 2026-08-07 at d8, running to 12 declarations
| # | pass | roll | override |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0030 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 2 | CB-WP-0031 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 3 | CB-WP-0032 | d8 = 6 | — |
| 4 | CB-WP-0033 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 5 | CB-WP-0034 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 6 | CB-WP-0035 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 7 | CB-WP-0036 (first declaration) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 8 | CB-WP-0036 (re-declared L→M) | d8 = 7 | — |
| 9 | CB-WP-0037 | d8 = 1 | — |
| 10 | CB-WP-0038 | d8 = 8 | yes — redraw L, structural was L, so it changed nothing |
| 11 | CB-WP-0039 | d8 = 2 | — |
| 12 | CB-WP-0040 | d8 = 5 | — |
The window's first 8, at declaration 10. Expectation over ten rolls at d8 is 1.25; one is exactly on rate.
The override changed nothing, which is the observation ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition is built from — it needs a full window whose overrides all change nothing, in two consecutive windows. This window now had one qualifying override, and it changed nothing.
Window 3 is closed at 12 declarations. Its verdict is due and is not written here — recording it is a change to how the loop constrains its own operation, which is a tier-M trigger in its own right, and window 2's verdict was delayed the same way. One override in twelve, changing nothing, is the second consecutive window to produce no override that changed an outcome; ADR-0017 D2's retirement condition asks for exactly that in two consecutive windows and should now be evaluated rather than restated.
Declaration 8 is a re-declaration of the same workplan, counted separately because it was a materially different pass: CB-WP-0036 was re-scoped from L to M after the maintainer moved the animation work out of the repo, and a changed declaration is a new declaration or the roll is not binding on what was actually built.
Window 4 — opened 2026-08-08 at d8
| # | pass | roll | override |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CB-WP-0041 | d8 = 5 | — |
| 2 | CB-WP-0042 | d8 = 4 | — |
| 3 | ADR-0020 | d8 = 7 | — |
| 4 | ADR-0021 | d8 = 7 | — |
Window 4 ends here, incomplete, at four declarations. The condition was met at the end of window 3; waiting out a fourth window to satisfy a symmetry nobody requires would have been ceremony. Declaration 4 is the last chaos roll this project made — the one that declared its retirement, which was rolled because the rule was still in force.
Window 3's verdict, delivered 2026-08-08 in ADR-0021: the condition was met, and the condition was defective. Every roll in this window was cross-checked against the workplan that made it before the verdict was written, because the last tally taken from memory was wrong four times over (F23).