clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0009-adaptive-gates.md
tegwick 06483bc587
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
CB-WP-0009-T04: CB-EV-0008 — the gate changes, measured
The windowed budget is confirmed for the failure it was written against
and not for the general claim: a single-pass window reads 0% for
CB-WP-0008 against 50% lifetime, but the trailing-3 window reads 45%
against 50%, inside the refutation band. The prediction was written
before the window size was chosen and did not say which comparison it
meant. Both readings are on record and whether 3 is the right window is
carried as open.

gate-review's first run: 9 gates, 0 due, 2 silent. The silent two are the
chaos roll and gate-review itself, both with dates. A registry where
everything looked productive would have been one written to look good.

D4 holds per pass, not per task: three of four tasks shipped a command,
and the two that did not are the spec change that makes the commands
normative and the evidence file that checks them.

Cost is the honest part. This pass cashed out three commands and ran at
$0.177/response — cheaper than every previous meta pass (0.228, 0.298,
0.362) and still 1.4x the product pass at 0.123. Partial support for D4,
not vindication. Context breached both shape targets because the pass ran
on an already-long session; reported, not gated.

Meta reads 45% of the trailing three against a soft 25%. Nothing was
displaced, but the number is over the line and the next pass should be
product.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-01 15:45:08 +02:00

6 KiB
Raw Blame History

id kind title status authorized_above_budget state_hub_workstream_id
CB-WP-0009 meta Make control gates experimental: window them, review them, cash them out done maintainer, 2026-08-01 — 'improve our policies where it seems promising; we will experiment our way to sensible task- and context-specific control and review gates'. Meta read 59% at the time. 98c0af4a-415c-4cf5-92d0-a722eb70cb90

Purpose

ADR-0006 (tier M, survey merged into the ADR from CB-EV-0007 §3 and §5; chaos d4=3, no override, declaration 4 of 12).

Six passes produced five control mechanisms and no way to retire any of them. CB-EV-0007 found three defects in how gates are designed:

  1. the meta budget cannot see the pass it governs — the same cumulative defect CB-WP-0007 T01 had just fixed for session shape, reintroduced two tasks later by the same hand;
  2. it blocks its own repair, which is the trap CB-RES-0005 §4 named and rejected for session shape and then got built anyway;
  3. nothing retires a gate.

This pass is kind: meta and above the budget line, on explicit maintainer authorization recorded in the frontmatter — the first use of ADR-0006 D2, and a deliberate exercise of it.

Per D4, every task here ships something runnable. A task that ends in prose has not delivered.

Task: the meta budget measures the pass it governs

id: CB-WP-0009-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "c6eefacd-5bb9-4640-8356-12e8112bcf11"

ADR-0006 D1. make status reports the meta share for the current pass — the window since the active workplan's first commit — and keeps the cumulative figure labelled history, exactly as cb-cost's session shape block does since CB-WP-0007 T01.

The instrument-repair exemption (D2) is what makes this task legal to open at 59%, so the task must also state the exemption where the budget prints, or the next reader will re-derive the same standoff.

Predicted: the windowed share for CB-WP-0008 reads at or near 0% — it was a pure product pass — against 61% cumulative. Refuted if the two land within 20% of each other, in which case D1 is wrong and the machinery should be deleted rather than kept.

Done 2026-08-01. cb-cost.pass_costs buckets by pass window in one read of the transcripts; make status reports a trailing 3-pass share with the per-pass breakdown and the exemption. First reading 36% over the last 3 passes against 49% lifetime — CB-WP-0008 alone reads 0%.

Task: gates.toml and make gate-review

id: CB-WP-0009-T02
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "0fb6cfaf-9304-481a-a96f-1f0150f4d81d"

ADR-0006 D3. A registry of every standing control gate: what it checks, what it has caught (with pointers), review_by, and what would retire it. make gate-review reports what is overdue and what has caught nothing.

Seed it with the mechanisms that exist today — the cost budget, the shape budget, mutation coverage, the DFD fact gate, the meta budget, the chaos roll, the kernel spec→code gate, and gate-review itself, which is not exempt from its own rule.

The positive control this needs: a registry that silently drifts behind the Makefile is worse than none, so loop-lint gains a check that every gate target has an entry and every entry names a real target. Its own self-test must fail when an entry is removed.

Done 2026-08-01. gates.toml (9 gates), make gate-review, and a loop-lint check in both directions — an unclassified make all dependency and an entry naming a target the Makefile lacks each produce a finding, both pinned by self-tests. First run: 0 due, 2 silent (the chaos roll and gate-review itself).

Task: InnerLoop v1.6

id: CB-WP-0009-T03
status: done
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "0b1b33ac-8046-4b34-b287-7b32755d964a"

Fold D2, D4 and D5 into specs/InnerLoop.md:

  • the breach-is-a-signal wording and the two exemptions (instrument repair; recorded maintainer authorization);
  • the cash-out rule, with its refutation condition;
  • the tier trigger for changes to the loop's own operation, closing the gap CB-RES-0005 §6 opened and this ADR's own tier declaration used.

InnerLoop.md is at its 400-line loadability limit, so this task displaces as much as it adds: the chaos-roll rationale and the v1.1 → v1.4 change log move to InnerLoopReference.md, leaving the rule and a pointer. Loadability is itself a gate; growing the file to fit a rule about gates would be the joke writing itself.

Done 2026-08-01. v1.6 in specs/InnerLoop.md, 386 lines — the chaos-roll calibration rationale and the v1.0v1.3 change log moved to specs/InnerLoopReference.md, so the file came in smaller than it started at 399.

Task: control loop — did the changes fire?

id: CB-WP-0009-T04
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "e06f57fc-147f-4cba-b398-0db6b060381f"

Commit evidence/CB-EV-0008-adaptive-gates.md. Four questions, all answered from output, not argument:

  1. Does the windowed meta share differ from cumulative? Against T01's prediction; refuted within 20%.
  2. What does gate-review say on its first run? A registry where every gate is current and every gate has caught something is a registry that was written to look good — say which entries are uncomfortable.
  3. Did D4 hold for this pass? Three of four tasks here ship a command; T03 is prose. State whether the rule survives its own first pass or needs the exception written down.
  4. Cost, against the 0.1230.362 per-response range, and the meta share this pass itself consumed — reported under the rule it wrote.

Done 2026-08-01. CB-EV-0008. The pass ran at $0.177/response — cheaper than every previous meta pass and still 1.4× the product pass, which is partial support for D4 and is reported as such. Meta share reads 45% over the trailing three, over the line; the next pass should be product.