tegwick
0b6f7c5bc8
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
The two AM-4 budgets had the SAME scope -- one package, no dev edges -- while claiming to bound different things. AM-4b now measures the workspace with dev edges: 57 crates / 725,258 lines where it read 29 / 317,021, having been blind to 28 crates and 408,237 lines, more source than its own target. Target 745,000, ~2.7% of room -- the same margin ADR-0008 D3 gave AM-4a, applied to a number that grew because the instrument was repaired, not because anything was added. The target moved to fit the measurement. T02: proc-macros are COUNTED here and excluded from AM-4a, on purpose. AM-4a asks what ships and a proc-macro never ships. AM-4b asks what is acquired, and ADR-0007 D3's acquisition rule counts what the build fetches -- 'it does not ship' is no answer to 'we downloaded it'. When the rules disagree, the question each budget asks decides. Measured share 109,585 lines / 15.1% against AM-4a's 36.2%, so ADR-0008 D2's refusal to borrow the ratio was right by more than a factor of two. Caught by this project's own earlier work twice: the mutation find-string went stale and --self-test reported it BUILD-FREE (the check CB-WP-0015 added after AM-4a's rotted for two passes), then the DFD gate caught facts.toml carrying the old numbers. CB-EV-0001 and ADR-0004 carried live fact: tags on historical readings. A dated record asserting a CURRENT value is a category error, so those occurrences are marked as-measured instead of retro-edited, and ADR-0004 gains a supersession note. make all exits 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
104 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
104 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
> **Superseded in part, 2026-08-03 (CB-WP-0019 T01/T02).** This ADR
|
|
> ratified AM-4b at ≤350,000 against a graph measuring 317,021 — but that
|
|
> graph was **one package with no dev edges**, blind to 28 crates and
|
|
> 408,237 lines. AM-4b now asks *what a contributor acquires*
|
|
> (`--workspace --edges normal,dev`, proc-macros counted) and its target is
|
|
> **745,000**. The reasoning here still stands; the scope it was applied to
|
|
> did not. See `specs/GameKernel.md` §5c.
|
|
|
|
# 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 **Superseded measurement (ADR-0008 D2/D3, 2026-08-02).** The AM-4a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
|
|
tier: S (structural S — ratifies an existing target, creates no capability; chaos d4=3)
|
|
supersedes: nothing; discharges the open item raised by CB-WP-0003 T07
|
|
references: [GameKernel.md](../specs/GameKernel.md) §4,
|
|
[InnerLoop.md](../specs/InnerLoop.md) §Step 4 (correction vs retarget),
|
|
`history/260731-inner-loop-rule-audit.md`
|
|
|
|
## Why this ADR exists
|
|
|
|
CB-WP-0003 T07 added a mechanical test separating a **correction** (the
|
|
instrument disproved the target; the implementation did not change) from a
|
|
**retarget** (the same commit moved both the target and the code it
|
|
measures). AM-4a/AM-4b failed that test: they were set at 250,000 and
|
|
350,000 in commit `4be6e02`, by the implementer, after seeing the measured
|
|
246,250 — and that commit also changed the feature gating the metric
|
|
measures.
|
|
|
|
The reasoning was recorded at the time and is defensible. The *structure*
|
|
was not, and the audit flagged both targets as unratified: `make
|
|
dep-weight` has been enforcing thresholds no reviewed decision stood
|
|
behind.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
**AM-4a (≤ 250,000 lines, shipped runtime) and AM-4b (≤ 350,000 lines,
|
|
dev toolchain) are ratified as written.** No values change.
|
|
|
|
## The old target, and why it was abandoned
|
|
|
|
AM-4 originally read **≤ 20 transitive crates**, set against
|
|
boardgame.io's 120 npm packages. Retired for two measured reasons:
|
|
|
|
1. **Unreachable without undoing this spec's own contracts.** K5 (seeded
|
|
ChaCha) and K7 (SHA-256) cost 12 crates between them. The measured
|
|
ladder showed nothing reached 20 except reimplementing one of those
|
|
primitives — trading an audited cryptographic implementation for a
|
|
scoreboard number.
|
|
2. **Crate count does not compare across ecosystems.** Rust splits crates
|
|
far more finely than npm, so the original 33-vs-120 comparison
|
|
flattered us while the ≤20 target punished us, for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
## The measurement that motivated the change
|
|
|
|
At the time of the retarget, `make dep-weight`:
|
|
|
|
| configuration | crates | third-party 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** | <!-- as-measured 2026-07-31; AM-4b was rescoped by CB-WP-0019, see GameKernel 5c -->
|
|
| own source | — | 3,443 |
|
|
|
|
## Why these targets bind on future work rather than merely passing present work
|
|
|
|
This is the question T07 requires an ADR to answer, and it is the reason
|
|
ratification is defensible rather than a rubber stamp.
|
|
|
|
- **AM-4a leaves 3,750 lines of headroom — 1.5%.** That is roughly one
|
|
small crate. Any dependency added to the shipped runtime breaches it
|
|
almost immediately, which is the intended behaviour: the shipped runtime
|
|
is meant to be effectively frozen, and the target enforces that a new
|
|
runtime dependency is a decision someone must argue for, not a default.
|
|
- **AM-4b leaves 32,979 lines — 10.4%.** Deliberately looser. The dev
|
|
toolchain is where scenario YAML, benchmarking, and future tooling land,
|
|
and it does not ship to a player. It should be able to absorb one
|
|
moderate dependency without a spec change, and not two.
|
|
- **Both are ceilings on a quantity that only grows by choice.** Nothing
|
|
drifts a project across these thresholds; only adding a dependency does.
|
|
A target that can only be breached deliberately is a target that binds.
|
|
|
|
**What would falsify this ratification:** if a future pass finds itself
|
|
raising AM-4a to accommodate a dependency it wanted, that is the failure
|
|
mode the ceiling exists to catch, and the answer is a new ADR arguing for
|
|
the dependency — not a quiet retarget.
|
|
|
|
## Consequences
|
|
|
|
- The open item in `history/260731-inner-loop-rule-audit.md` is discharged.
|
|
- `make dep-weight` continues to fail the build on breach, now backed by a
|
|
reviewed decision.
|
|
- AM-4c (own source per 100k third-party lines) remains **reported, not
|
|
targeted**, and is unaffected.
|
|
- Precedent: this is the first ADR written under the correction/retarget
|
|
test. Future retargets follow this shape — old target, the measurement,
|
|
and an argument about *future* binding rather than present passing.
|