Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Has been cancelled
T05. tools/design.py, make design, and the register in GroundRules.md --
14 rows, no new file, because ADR-0012 D2 made §Underdetermined the
register rather than building one beside it.
Backfill was the test and it caught two things the ADR did not have.
First, a `role` column. The first report alarmed on U2 and was wrong to:
U2's scenario is green BECAUSE the provisional default it documents is
implemented, which says nothing about whether ground-game agrees. GR-E01's
was a counterexample that went green. Same colour, opposite meaning -- a
register that cannot tell them apart either alarms constantly or never.
Only a green counterexample alarms. Folded back into GameDesign §1.3.
Second, it contradicted the survey. CB-RES-0007 said "six of the ten
already have provisional scenarios." Measured -- grep -lE "\bU<n>\b" over
scenarios/ground -- exactly ONE U-item names itself. Five provisional
scenarios exist and four probably encode U-item defaults, but the mapping
is not written down, so it is not checkable. Same defect class as the
wrong premises, found inside the survey that proposed the fix. Now a
reported debt: open, lacking a reproduction: 9, target 0.
design.py carries the control design-baseline.py never had, asserted
directly: a row citing a nonexistent file must not count as reproduced,
using the exact path 2da19a4 deleted -- which the old tool called green.
design-baseline.py is marked superseded rather than deleted; it is the
evidence for how a wrong number got into a survey.
T06. The report is a FILE in ground-game under GROUND-WP-0002, committed
there, with a hub message that only points at it. It asks for no ruling:
it carries GR-E01's withdrawal, our reproduction debt, and two notes that
are explicitly not findings.
And it had to acknowledge something nobody anticipated. GROUND-WP-0002 is
finished -- all ten U-items were RULED 2026-08-03, every one confirmed as
the default we simulate, plus five of six provisional scenarios. The
survey said "0 of 10 ruled" two days later and this register was built
saying `reported`. That is the unread-inbox failure running in the
opposite direction: they answered and we did not collect it. The
instrument's first run surfaced it. They are `ruled`, not `applied` --
lifting the now-settled provisional flags is owed and is not done, and
make design shows them open until it is.
T07. evidence/CB-EV-0021. Two of six catches in this pass came from
execution rather than process (the role distinction from building it, the
ten uncollected rulings from running it), which is InnerLoop §Design
goal's prediction holding.
make self-tests, facts-check, loop-lint: clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
119 lines
5.4 KiB
Python
Executable file
119 lines
5.4 KiB
Python
Executable file
#!/usr/bin/env python3
|
|
"""Baseline harness: how findable, reproducible and answered are the
|
|
design findings this project has already produced?
|
|
|
|
The comparator is US, today. The external candidates (rulings databases,
|
|
model-checker traces, W3C provisional marks) are practices rather than
|
|
runnable software, so per InnerLoop Step 1 their rows are DIRECTIONAL and
|
|
cap at `parity`. This is the row that can be measured.
|
|
"""
|
|
#
|
|
# ── SUPERSEDED 2026-08-05 by tools/design.py (ADR-0012 D8) ──────────────
|
|
#
|
|
# Kept as CB-RES-0007's dated snapshot, NOT as a live instrument. Deleting
|
|
# it would erase the evidence for how a wrong number got into a survey.
|
|
#
|
|
# The adversarial review (C2) dismantled it and every point is true:
|
|
# * FINDINGS below is a hand-maintained dict; `n = len(FINDINGS)` counts
|
|
# the rows someone typed, not findings that exist.
|
|
# * `has_reproduction` is `startswith("scenarios/")` and never stats the
|
|
# file, so the self-test's YES-control is GREEN against a path that
|
|
# 2da19a4 deleted. A positive control that controls nothing.
|
|
# * It rejects a named test, which the admissibility rule admits, so its
|
|
# 33% is biased downward.
|
|
# * The 4-day figure is two date literals subtracted. Mutated to
|
|
# 2020-01-01 it reports 2406 days with every check still green.
|
|
#
|
|
# **Its 33% is withdrawn as a measured rate.** What survived: 11 files,
|
|
# no index, 0 of 10 ruled — all checkable without this tool.
|
|
#
|
|
import os, re, subprocess, sys, datetime
|
|
|
|
ROOT = "/home/worsch/clay-borg"
|
|
os.chdir(ROOT)
|
|
|
|
# The findings this project has actually produced, and where each lives.
|
|
FINDINGS = {
|
|
"U1..U10 underdetermined points": ["specs/GroundRules.md"],
|
|
"SOLVE on a face-down Problem": ["workplans/CB-WP-0018-the-browser-is-a-client.md",
|
|
"evidence/CB-EV-0016-the-browser-is-a-client.md"],
|
|
"GR-A13 wasted SOLVE": ["evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md"],
|
|
# RESOLVED 2026-08-04: ground-game ruled GR-S01's deal, the engine
|
|
# imports the edition, and the scenario was renamed from
|
|
# `-unreachable-` to `-reachable-`. Kept in the baseline because the
|
|
# baseline is a snapshot of what the survey measured, and a register
|
|
# that drops findings when they close cannot report a close rate.
|
|
"GR-E01 unreachable below 5 seats [RESOLVED]": [
|
|
"evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md",
|
|
"scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-reachable-2p.yaml",
|
|
"workplans/CB-WP-0021-import-the-edition.md"],
|
|
"six provisional defaults": sorted(
|
|
os.path.join("scenarios/ground", f)
|
|
for f in os.listdir("scenarios/ground")
|
|
if f.endswith(".yaml")
|
|
and "provisional: true" in open(os.path.join("scenarios/ground", f)).read()),
|
|
"GR-E03/GR-E04 never played": ["evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md"],
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
def has_reproduction(paths):
|
|
"""A runnable thing: a scenario file, or a named test/command."""
|
|
for p in paths:
|
|
if p.startswith("scenarios/"):
|
|
return True
|
|
return False
|
|
|
|
def self_test():
|
|
"""The control that matters: a harness that read nothing must not
|
|
report a clean baseline. Every path this survey cites must exist, and
|
|
the reproduction test must be able to say NO — one that answered yes
|
|
for everything would report 100% and look excellent."""
|
|
results = []
|
|
|
|
def check(name, ok, detail=""):
|
|
results.append((name, ok, detail))
|
|
|
|
missing = [p for paths in FINDINGS.values() for p in paths
|
|
if not os.path.exists(p)]
|
|
check("every cited location exists", not missing, ", ".join(missing[:3]))
|
|
check("the finding set is not empty", len(FINDINGS) >= 6, f"{len(FINDINGS)}")
|
|
check("reproduction detection can say NO",
|
|
not has_reproduction(["evidence/CB-EV-0007-stage-0.md"]),
|
|
"a detector that always says yes would report 100%")
|
|
check("reproduction detection can say YES",
|
|
has_reproduction(["scenarios/ground/gr-e01-threshold-unreachable-2p.yaml"]))
|
|
# The number this survey turns on, pinned so a later edit cannot move
|
|
# it silently: 2 of 6 today.
|
|
repro_now = sum(has_reproduction(v) for v in FINDINGS.values())
|
|
check("the measured baseline is 2 of 6", repro_now == 2, f"{repro_now}/6")
|
|
|
|
print("design-baseline self-test (positive control)")
|
|
ok = True
|
|
for name, passed, det in results:
|
|
print(f" [{'ok ' if passed else 'FAIL'}] {name}" + (f" — {det}" if det else ""))
|
|
ok &= passed
|
|
return 0 if ok else 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
if "--self-test" in sys.argv:
|
|
raise SystemExit(self_test())
|
|
|
|
print("BASELINE — design findings as they stand, 2026-08-03\n")
|
|
places = set()
|
|
repro = 0
|
|
for name, paths in FINDINGS.items():
|
|
places.update(paths)
|
|
r = has_reproduction(paths)
|
|
repro += r
|
|
print(f" {'repro' if r else ' - '} {len(paths)} location(s) {name}")
|
|
|
|
n = len(FINDINGS)
|
|
print(f"\n findings {n}")
|
|
print(f" with a runnable reproduction {repro}/{n} = {100*repro//n}%")
|
|
print(f" distinct files holding them {len(places)}")
|
|
print(f" single register? NO — {len(places)} files, no index")
|
|
|
|
# Time from raised to READ, for the one finding with a timestamp trail.
|
|
raised = datetime.date(2026, 7, 30) # hub message from clay-borg-custodian
|
|
read = datetime.date(2026, 8, 3) # marked read this session
|
|
print(f"\n U1..U10: raised {raised}, first READ {read} — {(read-raised).days} days")
|
|
print(f" U1..U10: answered? NO — {(read-raised).days}+ days open, 0 of 10 ruled")
|