tegwick
06483bc587
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
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> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| CB-EV-0001-game-kernel.md | ||
| CB-EV-0002-cost-accounting.md | ||
| CB-EV-0003-mechanical-work.md | ||
| CB-EV-0004-assertion-coverage.md | ||
| CB-EV-0005-instrument-the-table.md | ||
| CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md | ||
| CB-EV-0008-adaptive-gates.md | ||