clay-borg/evidence/CB-EV-0019-import-the-edition.md

CB-EV-0019 — import the edition

CB-WP-0021 T04. Tier M (structural M — adds or refuses an external dependency and changes how a game is set up; chaos d8=7 → no override). Closed 2026-08-05, four days after the code landed.

Delivered: ADR-0011, editions/ground-darvo-r0/Problems.csv with a digest, a ~150-line reader in games/ground/src/edition.rs, tools/edition-check.py, and the ruled deal — Surface ∪ hidden 1..=k.

---

1. What the import cost, and the budget it was measured against

The declaration's constraint was measured against the wrong denominator, and the ADR corrected it. CB-WP-0021 said a CSV crate costs 21,613 lines against AM-4a's 3,798 of headroom — "5.7× over, settled by measurement rather than preference."

setup and problem_priorities are #[cfg(feature = "scenarios")]. They are not in the shipped runtime, so AM-4a never sees them. Against AM-4b's graph:

	lines
AM-4b headroom	19,742
csv marginal (csv + csv-core; ryu/itoa/memchr already present)	17,651

It fits, with 2,091 to spare — and was refused anyway, on proportion: 89% of everything the budget had left, to read 20 rows. What shipped is a hand-rolled reader we own.

That is the third premise this pass had to correct, and the second where a real number was computed against a mis-chosen denominator. The pattern is now well enough attested to name: this project's arithmetic errors are not in the arithmetic. CB-WP-0022 T02 produced two more of the same shape four days later.

Current dependency position, make dep-weight:

AM-4c shipped-runtime   7,976 own lines per 100k third-party  (diagnostic)
AM-4c dev-toolchain     1,729 own lines per 100k third-party  (diagnostic)

2. What broke — and the hash blast radius was predicted, not discovered

The task asked which it was. Predicted, and then measured to be almost nothing.

T01's brief said Problem values and suits enter GroundState, which is hashed (K7), so "every recorded state hash changes", and required the blast radius be established before writing code. ADR-0011 §Decision 3 did exactly that:

scenario files pinning a state hash	0

So the feared radius was ~0. Scenarios assert on state blocks, not hashes; replay-test re-executes bundles and restores them; AM-7's probe asserts per-segment hashes within a run rather than against recorded literals.

No hash was grandfathered and none recorded as "was" — ADR-0011's words: a recorded hash that outliving the content it describes is a lie with a timestamp.

Verified today:

• make replay-test — 14/14 controls passed, including "the bundle still replays after every control restored it";
• make am7 — scaling 0.985 / 0.998 / 1.018 (worst/median/best of 9) against a 0.9 floor. Green, after T06 fixed the measurement rather than lowering the floor.

What did break was the scenario corpus's data assumptions: six scenario files needed value/suit updates (gr-a02-solve, gr-e03-common-problem, gr-e04-coalitions, gr-f02-no-gate, gr-p05-solve-legality) because they encoded stand-in numbers. That is the expected cost of replacing invented data with real data, and every one was a data edit rather than a logic change.

3. Do the endings mean anything now? Yes — and the margin is one point

This is the question the pass existed for. Played today, 2 players, all-bots:

OUTCOME  total 4 / threshold 5  group failure
  personal:  P1 2  P2 2
  mastery 2
  problems:  [1] Repair 2 claimed by P2  [2] Clarify 2  [3] Boundary 2 claimed by P1

Three Problems worth 2 each — 6 available against a threshold of 5. The bots claimed two of three, scored 4, and lost by one point.

This confirms T02's control by play. That control said: "at 2p that means a full clear, since 2+2+2 against 5 leaves no slack." It is exactly right — at two seats, leaving any single Problem unclaimed loses the game. The endings are not merely reachable; they are tight, which is a far better answer than "reachable" and was not guaranteed by the ruling.

And it retires the finding this pass was built around. GR-E01 was raised as "unreachable below 5 seats" on 4/6/9 against 5/7/9. The real deal is 6/9/12 against 5/7/9. gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p is now gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p, non-provisional, and the finding was formally withdrawn to ground-game on 2026-08-05 (CB-WP-0022 T06) — because it took an adversarial review, four days later, for anyone to notice that this pass had already falsified it.

That is the sharpest thing in this evidence file. The work that disproved GR-E01 is in this workplan. The workplan that quoted GR-E01 as its founding example was written the next day. Nothing connected them until a separate agent ran git log.

4. Quoting CB-WP-0020's cost — the instrument refuses

T04 asked for CB-WP-0020's cost by re-running the instrument. It cannot be supplied:

$ python3 tools/cb-cost.py --slug CB-WP-0020 --by-task
ABORT — no transcripts found for CB-WP-0020

The instrument aborts rather than estimating, which is correct behaviour and is why the number is absent instead of wrong. CB-WP-0020's transcripts are outside the retained window.

What the instrument does report, run today:

main          $ 548.03      output       2,125,069 tok   $ 56.16  10.1%
subagent tree $   5.50      cache_read 750,152,134 tok   $394.44  71.3%
TOTAL         $ 553.53      write_1h     9,233,711 tok   $ 97.48  17.6%

  UNATTRIBUTED     $230.34   41.6%
  CB-WP-0021-T01   $ 17.15    3.1%   PROVISIONAL — this pass's own
  CB-WP-0021-T06   $ 14.31    2.6%   PROVISIONAL — this pass's own

The two CB-WP-0021 rows are provisional and must not be quoted as final. They are this pass's own spend, measured while writing this file, so the number is still moving — loop-lint's own-cost rule caught the first draft asserting them flat, which is the rule working.

41.6% unattributed is the number worth carrying forward, not any per-task figure. A cost instrument that cannot say where two-fifths of the spend went is a partial instrument, and the retention window is why the chain of "quote the previous pass's cost" — a rule designed to keep costs comparable across passes — breaks after roughly four passes.

That rule should either be bounded to what the window holds, or the window extended. It is not this pass's to decide; it is recorded here because this is the first pass where the chain actually snapped.

5. Chaos window 2

Declaration 4 of 12. Structural M, d8 = 7, no override. The roll is recorded per §Loop tiers even though it changed nothing.

Window 2 standing: no override has yet changed an outcome. The retirement condition — retire if an override changes nothing twice running — has not been triggered, because there have been no overrides to evaluate.

Open after this pass

• The cost chain is broken (§4) and the rule that depends on it needs a bound.
• The wrong-denominator pattern (§1) now has three instances and no control. facts-check catches copies that disagree; nothing catches a number computed correctly against the wrong base.