clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0014-execute-the-javascript.md

id	kind	title	status
CB-WP-0014	product	Execute the JavaScript, and close or keep stage 1	todo

Purpose

structural tier  M   (adds an external dependency to the toolchain —
                      InnerLoop v1.6 tier table)
chaos            d4 = 2  → no override
declared tier    M

Declaration 9 of 12. Tier M merges the survey and the ADR into one document; the adversarial review is optional.

The one thing blocking stage 1

CB-EV-0010 §4, stated plainly at the time:

The emitted JavaScript has never run. Every test is on the Rust side: the socket loop is driven by synthetic HTTP, and the page is asserted against as a parsed document. No browser engine has executed SCRIPT.

All four of INTENT stage 1's named deliverables now exist. That sentence is the only reason the stage is still open, and it has been carried unexamined for one pass on the assumption that executing it was not possible here.

It is possible. node v24.11.1 is on this machine. The assumption was never checked, which makes it the same shape as every other finding in the last three passes: a claim carried because nobody ran the one command that would settle it.

What executing it actually proves

Not that the table looks right — that needs a rendering engine and a human eye, and neither is available here. What it proves is the contract ADR-0007 control 5 rests on:

the page reports raw pointer facts and nothing else, and Rust decides what command they mean.

That contract is currently asserted by a test that greps the emitted script for game vocabulary. Grepping for the absence of words is a weak proxy for "this code cannot construct a command". Running it, feeding it synthetic pointer events, and observing exactly what it puts on the wire is the real check.

Task: decide whether a JS engine joins the toolchain

id: CB-WP-0014-T01
status: todo
priority: high

Write decisions/ADR-0009-*.md (tier M: survey and decision in one).

This is a real dependency decision, not a formality. CI runs on the rust:1.97 image, which has no node. Adding a test that needs one means either installing it in CI or letting the test skip — and a test that skips silently is the harness-does-nothing class this project has found five times. If it can skip, it must fail loudly instead.

Decide, and price it under ADR-0007 Decision 3's acquisition rule — the rule this project adopted precisely so that "it's only a dev tool" is not an automatic pass:

• python3 is already a toolchain dependency, so this is the second, not the first. Say whether that makes it cheaper or is merely a precedent being leaned on.
• What the alternatives cost: no execution at all (status quo, and the reason stage 1 is open), or a JS interpreter as a Rust crate (measure it — do not estimate, and note that AM-4b now has an unmeasured proc-macro share of its own).
• Whether the engine is required by make all or by a separate target.

AM-4b is the budget this lands in, and it is the instrument CB-WP-0013 explicitly declined to correct. Do not use its uncorrected headroom as an argument.

Task: run it, end to end, through a real socket

id: CB-WP-0014-T02
status: todo
priority: high

Execute cb_render_html::doc::SCRIPT in a real JS engine against a minimal DOM, synthesize a pointer-down and pointer-up on two real element ids from a real emitted document, and let its fetch reach the actual Server — the same next_choice loop cb-play --serve runs.

Acceptance: the seat's Choice comes back from a pointer gesture that originated in JavaScript. That is the first time anything in this project has closed that loop.

Controls, and they are the point. The test must go red when:

• the JS is mutated to POST a command name instead of element ids — this is control 5 asserted rather than grepped, and if it does not fire, the grep test was the only thing holding the contract up;
• the pointer events are not delivered at all — the EXPECT-VACUOUS case, a harness that runs a script and asserts nothing about what it did;
• the token is stripped from the endpoint the page was given.

Task: close stage 1, or say what still blocks it

id: CB-WP-0014-T03
status: todo
priority: high

evidence/CB-EV-0012-*.md, and then a decision on INTENT.

Be precise about what is and is not established. A passing JS test proves the input contract and the loop. It does not prove that an SVG table renders legibly, that a drag feels like a drag, or that a human can play a game — none of which any test here can reach.

State which of stage 1's four deliverables are evidenced and which rest on inspection, then close the stage or name the remaining blocker. Carrying it open by default is as unexamined as closing it by default was going to be.

Adopt or reject the self-quoting rule proposed in CB-EV-0011 §4: an evidence file quotes the previous pass's final cost and never its own. This pass is the first that can apply it — CB-WP-0013's figure is now final. Decide it rather than inheriting it.