tegwick
06b3df6eca
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
The framing hypothesis -- a rule that cannot be executed is not a rule
-- survives but was too coarse. CB-WP-0002 corrected one number four
times and each correction came from a DIFFERENT mechanism, none finding
more than one. Two limits are now measured rather than assumed:
- a positive control cannot catch trusted arithmetic (both errors in
$248.46 were sums over data that really existed)
- adversarial review cannot catch a same-sample blind spot: survey and
reviewer both verified dedup on the main transcript, and it is false
in the subagent tree neither examined
Task-level revisions:
T01 also classify each rule by WHICH failure class it catches; seven
instances across three classes are now on record
T02 scope reduced -- the --self-test contract, cb-cost's five
assertions, make cost-test in CI are delivered; remaining work is
rule-coverage/dep-weight plus a check that new tools carry one
T03 now backed by two measurements ($0.66, $1.11 at ~1% of a pass),
and must also state what review CANNOT do
T04 premise overturned -- sessions are bounded-quadratic, not
quadratic. /compact cut context 27x and cost/turn 3.1x. Measure
compaction against a fresh session before prescribing either
T05 unblocked, with calibration data ($1.29-$21.02/task) and the
constraint that a budget binds only on the 67.5% attribution
reaches, only after the closing commit
T07 sharpened -- CB-WP-0002 retargeted three times, correctly, so a
blanket prohibition is wrong; separate instrument-disproved-target
from implementation-missed-target
T10 its prediction is already falsified; the successor question is
whether class-by-class hardening converges at all
T11 NEW -- the price sheet cannot express a dated rate and becomes
wrong on 2026-08-31
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CB-WP-0001-inner-loop.md | ||
| CB-WP-0002-cost-accounting.md | ||
| CB-WP-0003-loop-hardening.md | ||