Five decisions:
1. cb-render-html emits HTML/SVG/JS; the browser draws it. Rejected on
measured marginal cost: egui+eframe 2,782,849; wgpu+winit 1,741,979;
ratatui 1,067,013; macroquad 480,501; sdl2 191,973; fltk 140,079.
The reason is allocation, not affordability — fltk is only 1.5x the
corrected headroom, but wgpu is 12x fltk, unavoidable, and named by
INTENT for stage 2. Stage 1 should not buy windowing stage 2 discards.
2. No cb-render-api and no cb-render-null. A port designed against one
document-emitting implementation acquires a document's shape and
stage 2 rewrites it. INTENT's second-use rule beats the blueprint's
port pattern on timing. cb-render-html ships against Project.
3. AM-4 counts third-party code the project causes to be ACQUIRED, not
runtimes the user already has. Browsers are not counted; sdl2 and
fltk are counted at MORE than their Rust bindings. The rule costs
more than it saves, which is the only reason to trust it here.
4. AM-4a's proc-macro defect (89,048 lines, 36.2%) is filed separately,
not bundled with the request it unblocks.
5. Six controls bind the implementation, including a mutation-backed
test that a token-less loopback request is refused, a bar on JS
constructing commands, and a coverage gate asserting over the parsed
emitted document rather than the Rust that emits it.
Reserved for the maintainer: AM-4a exceeds INTENT stage 2 by 7x and
cannot survive it; and whether decision 3's rule is the right one.
The hard gate held — no render implementation code before this commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
tegwick
883b608f36