tegwick
cdc42afbb6
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 3s
Two passes have now had the opportunity to give this type a second consumer and declined: CB-WP-0008's bots and CLI drive GROUND's inline commit/reveal, and this pass reviewed it and changed nothing. The date is not moved and the type is not deleted early. The stated condition is a second game, and no second game has been attempted, so the test has not run — only the opportunity has passed. Deleting on a test that was never run and extending a date because it is inconvenient are the same error in opposite directions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
93 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
id: CB-WP-0010
|
||
kind: product
|
||
title: "Close the open ends before stage 1"
|
||
status: done
|
||
state_hub_workstream_id: "071a2da8-cb95-4dda-a711-7173434bdc3c"
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Purpose
|
||
|
||
Tier **S** (structural S — fixes and one scenario, no capability port, no
|
||
canonical interface, no dependency; chaos d4=1, no override; declaration
|
||
5 of 12). One provenance paragraph per commit, no survey, no ADR.
|
||
|
||
Four items were carried out of CB-WP-0008 and CB-WP-0009 as open. Three
|
||
are cheap and closing them costs less than carrying them into a tier-L
|
||
stage-1 pass, where they would compete for attention with new work.
|
||
[CB-EV-0008](../evidence/CB-EV-0008-adaptive-gates.md) §4 also says the
|
||
next pass should be `product` — the meta budget reads 45% of the trailing
|
||
three against a soft 25%, and this pass is how it comes back down.
|
||
|
||
## Task: close CB-WP-0007
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
id: CB-WP-0010-T01
|
||
status: done
|
||
priority: high
|
||
state_hub_task_id: "88bafc24-eeac-4aa0-9c40-f15307dee120"
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
CB-WP-0007 sits at 2/6 with T05 and T06 `todo`. Both were overtaken:
|
||
|
||
- **T05** (control loop for the session-shape pass) was answered by
|
||
CB-EV-0008 §1 and §4, which measured the windowed metric and the budget
|
||
firing on real passes.
|
||
- **T06** asked whether there is a *fourth* way a number can fail to bind.
|
||
There is, and it is on record: CB-EV-0007 §3 found one **aggregated over
|
||
a window that cannot move it** — reintroduced two tasks after the same
|
||
defect was fixed for session shape.
|
||
|
||
Cancel both with pointers and mark the workplan `done`. A workplan left
|
||
`in_progress` forever makes `make status` name a stale next task, which
|
||
is what it has been doing for two passes.
|
||
|
||
## Task: GR-E03 gets a scenario
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
id: CB-WP-0010-T02
|
||
status: done
|
||
priority: high
|
||
state_hub_task_id: "89355b0a-9fc7-4d69-a27e-d3c94ff0730f"
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
CB-EV-0007 §1: **COMMON PROBLEM (GR-E03) is implemented, referenced by no
|
||
test, and would not fail if deleted.** GR-E02 and GR-E04 both have
|
||
scenarios; this is the only scoring mode with none.
|
||
|
||
Deliver `scenarios/ground/gr-e03-common-problem.yaml`: the group meets the
|
||
threshold, personal scores are claimed value −1 per Blame held, and the
|
||
highest personal score wins. Use the 5-player preset, where the threshold
|
||
is actually reachable (10 available against 9).
|
||
|
||
**Finding a defect here is the likely outcome and is the point** — this
|
||
is the first execution of that code path.
|
||
|
||
**Done 2026-08-02.** `gr-e03-common-problem.yaml` passes, and **no
|
||
defect was found** — GR-E03 scored correctly on its first execution.
|
||
The assertions were mutation-checked three ways rather than trusted:
|
||
a wrong personal score, a wrong `mastery`, and removing the Blame from
|
||
the fixture each turn it red. Every scoring mode now has a scenario.
|
||
|
||
## Task: record CommitWindow's second failed use
|
||
|
||
```task
|
||
id: CB-WP-0010-T03
|
||
status: done
|
||
priority: medium
|
||
state_hub_task_id: "1da2c1de-e098-440e-8cff-7c30817d1d2b"
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
`CommitWindow` is PROVISIONAL with a delete-by of 2026-12-31, on the
|
||
condition *"delete it if no second game uses it"*. CB-WP-0008 was its
|
||
best chance at a second consumer and did not take it — the bots and the
|
||
CLI drive GROUND's inline implementation.
|
||
|
||
**Do not delete it early.** The stated condition is a second *game*, and
|
||
no second game has been attempted, so the test has not run. Record the
|
||
evidence at the type so the December decision is already argued, and
|
||
leave the date alone. Moving a delete-by date on the strength of a test
|
||
that was never run is exactly the retarget InnerLoop §Step 4 forbids.
|
||
|
||
**Done 2026-08-02.** A second-use log at the type records both declined
|
||
opportunities (CB-WP-0008, CB-WP-0010). Date unchanged, type unchanged.
|