clay-borg/evidence/CB-EV-0025-the-commentary-track.md

CB-EV-0025 — the commentary track

CB-WP-0027 T05. Tier M (structural M — touches ADR-0007 D5's input contract and the recorded-session format; chaos d8=7 → no override). Declaration 10 of chaos window 2. Closed 2026-08-06.

Delivered: ADR-0014, a two-column page, a /note channel, trials/<date>-<slug>.md, tools/trials.py, make trials, and --trial on cb-play.

---

1. The question this file cannot answer

T05 asks whether a comment actually got written during play, by the maintainer, unprompted. It has not been asked yet, and that is the pass's real acceptance test, not any of the tests below.

The protocol's own claim is that it must cost almost nothing or it will not be done. Everything here is evidence that the mechanism works; none of it is evidence that it gets used. I exercised it myself, which proves the plumbing and proves nothing about the ergonomics — the person who wrote the feature is the worst possible witness to whether it is worth using.

Stated plainly rather than answered optimistically, because CB-WP-0022 built a register whose first run found ten answers nobody had collected: this project's failures are about whether things get read, not whether they get built.

2. What ADR-0007 D5 turned out to be

The workplan expected D5 — JavaScript may not construct commands — to be the hard part. It was the easy part, for a reason worth recording:

_ => return Err(format!("unrecognised field in pointer fact: {pair:?}")),

PointerFact::parse refuses any unrecognised field, so a comment could not reach the command path even by accident. A parser that ignored what it did not understand would have made this a real decision; one that refuses made it a non-event.

That is a control paying off two years of maintenance early, and it is the clearest instance in this project of strictness at a boundary being cheaper than vigilance across one. D5 is scoped, not amended: the command channel is untouched, and the note channel is a second one that cannot become the first because resolve takes a PointerFact and nothing converts a Note into one.

The test asserts it anyway, with a note whose text is a well-formed pointer fact — because "the types don't connect" is a claim about code layout until something checks the behaviour, and the inverse is asserted too so the test is not vacuous.

3. Running it changed the design, again

make trials's first version called any note without a recording an orphan. A recording is only written when the game ends, so every note in a live session reported as broken.

A metric that cries wolf is one nobody reads — which is the exact failure this pass exists to prevent, reproduced inside the tool built to prevent it. Now three states: ok, pending (no recording yet), orphan (the recording exists and the position is not in it). Only the third has a target of zero.

This is the third pass running where building or running the thing found something the design did not. CB-WP-0024's role column, CB-WP-0025's K=2 infeasibility, and this. The pattern is consistent enough to state: the ADRs in this project are good at deciding and poor at predicting, and the loop's value comes disproportionately from the code loop rather than from steps 1–3.

4. A latent defect surfaced by a name collision

make trials did nothing. trials is also a directory, so Make saw an up-to-date file and ran the recipe not at all.

Checking .PHONY found that design, difficulty and trials — added by CB-WP-0022, CB-WP-0025 and this pass — were all missing from it. Two of them work by luck: no file happens to share their name.

Three passes added a target and none added it to .PHONY, which is a process observation rather than a bug: the Makefile has no control that a new target is declared, and the failure is silent until a name collides. Not fixed beyond declaring the three, because a gate for this would cost more than it catches — but it is the kind of thing that is invisible until it is not.

5. What the escaping test found

esc() has escaped suit names since CB-WP-0012. This is the first user-authored free text the renderer has handled, and the source comment — "cannot currently carry a <" is how injection bugs are written — was written in anticipation of exactly this.

It held. <script>alert(1)</script> renders escaped.

The test asserts something the obvious version would miss: that the player's words are still readable afterwards. An escaper that dropped the text would pass "no script tag in the output" while destroying the note. Escaping that eats what someone wrote is its own defect, and only the positive half of the assertion catches it.

6. Coverage cost of the reflow

None. All 41 pre-existing cb-render-html tests passed unchanged through a full restructure of the document into two columns, including the coverage gate that asserts every view field appears in the parsed document.

That is a stronger result than it looks. The gate is coupled to tokens, not to layout — so moving every element into new containers did not disturb it. CB-WP-0024 saw the opposite when a probe was tied to a rendering (17 remaining), and the contrast is the useful part: a probe that names a fact survives a reflow; a probe that names a presentation does not.

7. Chaos window 2

CORRECTED 2026-08-07 — this section is wrong. Window 2 produced one override: declaration 3 (CB-WP-0020) rolled d8 = 8, drew S against a structural S, and changed nothing — which CB-WP-0020 recorded correctly at the time as "One." Eleven rolls at d8 (declaration 1 opened the window at d4) against an expectation of 1.375 eights. The rate was working; I asserted "zero" without counting, and each later evidence file cited the one before it. See ADR-0017 and F23.

Declaration 10 of 12. Structural M, d8 = 7, no override.

Twelve declarations, no 8 rolled, so the window closes with zero overrides and its retirement condition — retire if an override changes nothing twice running — is untestable. CB-EV-0024 §6 said this; it is now final rather than projected.

The window's own verdict should be that d8 made the mechanism unevaluable, and that the choice was between a rate that produces evidence and a rate that produces rarity. Window 1 at d4 produced two overrides and both changed the outcome; window 2 at d8 produced none.

8. One flaky gate, reported rather than dismissed

make all failed once at env-test and passed on re-run with zero failures. A cb-play server and several cargo processes were running concurrently during the failing run, which is the likely cause — but "likely" is doing work in that sentence and I did not chase it.

Recorded because a gate that fails intermittently and is re-run until green is a gate being trained not to matter, and this project has enough instances of that class already.

Open after this pass

• Nobody has used it yet (§1). Until a note is written in anger, the ergonomic claim is unsupported.
• Promotion is manual. ADR-0014 D5 says a comment becomes a register note by a human's judgement, and T04 reports comments but does not offer a one-step promotion. That was in the workplan's controls and is the part not built.
• The narrow-viewport rule is asserted on the stylesheet, not on a layout. There is no browser in the test harness that can measure a reflow, and saying the assertion is weaker than the claim is the honest position.
• The flaky env-test (§8) has no explanation, only a plausible one.