clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0003-loop-hardening.md

---
id: CB-WP-0003
title: "Harden the inner loop: executable rules, session economics, dead policy"
status: active
state_hub_workstream_id: "39d61dc0-870d-45c1-a595-bcf91f289dce"
---

# Purpose

A rigorous review of the loop after its first full pass (CB-WP-0001)
found error modes the loop does not catch and policy that costs
something while delivering nothing. The CI fixes were taken immediately
(commit `72c594e`); this workplan covers the rest.

The finding that framed it:

> **Writing a rule into `specs/InnerLoop.md` did not prevent the next
> instance of the failure it was written for. Making it a CI step did.**

**Revised 2026-07-31 from CB-WP-0002**, which was run first and changed
the premise. The original hypothesis — *a loop rule that cannot be
executed is not a rule* — survives but is now too coarse. CB-WP-0002
corrected one number four times ($248.46 → $92.21 → $92.87 → $93.32),
and **each correction came from a different mechanism**:

| mechanism | caught | cost |
|---|---|---|
| re-deriving instead of quoting | inherited double-count + single-model pricing | ~0 |
| adversarial review | target contradicted the survey's own finding | $1.11 |
| executable assertion (`--self-test`) | dedup invariant false in the subagent tree | ~0 |

**No mechanism found more than one.** So the goal is not to convert every
rule into a CI step; it is to know which class each mechanism catches and
to stop expecting one to cover another. Two specific limits are now
measured rather than assumed:

1. **A positive control cannot catch trusted arithmetic.** Both errors in
   $248.46 were sums over data that genuinely existed. An assertion of the
   form "did this harness do work?" answers yes, correctly, and the number
   is still wrong.
2. **Adversarial review cannot catch a same-sample blind spot.** The dedup
   invariant was verified on the main transcript by the survey *and*
   independently by the reviewer; it is false in the 8-response subagent
   tree neither examined. A reviewer's job is to re-derive the author's
   claims, and re-deriving on the same sample reproduces the same gap.

CB-WP-0002 also falsified this workplan's own prediction (old T10): the
fifth error was **not** of the harness-does-nothing class. Two more
instances arrived, of two new classes. The retrospective task is rewritten
accordingly.

## Phase A — Make the rules executable

## Task: Audit every InnerLoop rule for enforceability

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T01
status: done
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3d5d45fb-f931-407a-be71-d2d727279d5e"
```

Go through `specs/InnerLoop.md` **v1.1** rule by rule and classify each:
**executable** (a command fails when it is violated), **checkable**
(a human or agent can verify it in review, cheaply and objectively), or
**decorative** (neither). Record the table in
`history/YYMMDD-inner-loop-rule-audit.md`.

For each decorative rule, choose one of: make it executable, demote it
to guidance with that status stated, or delete it. The default is
delete — an unenforceable rule that reads like a requirement creates
false assurance, which is worse than silence.

**Revised:** classification is no longer enough. For each rule also record
**which failure class it catches**, drawn from the seven instances now on
record (four harness-does-nothing, two trusted-arithmetic, one
same-sample-blind-spot). A rule that catches a class no observed error
belongs to is a candidate for deletion even if it is perfectly executable.
Conversely, a class with no rule covering it is the gap worth the next
rule.

Known candidates to start from: whole-file loadability (~400 lines) is
mechanically checkable and unchecked — `specs/InnerLoop.md` is now near
that limit and should be measured first; "evidence or it didn't happen" is
executable via a committed-artifact check; the four v1.0 implementation
rules and the three v1.1 rules are currently prose.

## Task: Extend the positive-control gate beyond benchmarks

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T02
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "f861e67f-ed09-489d-963d-06697da9c08e"
```

**Partly delivered by CB-WP-0002.** Already done: the `--self-test`
contract is stated in `specs/InnerLoop.md` v1.1 §Step 5; `cb-cost` exposes
one with five assertions (AC-5..AC-9); `make cost` depends on
`make cost-test`; `cost-test` runs in CI and in `make all`. `cargo bench
-- --test` and cb-sim's empty-run check were already in place.

**Remaining scope:**

- `tools/rule-coverage.py` and `tools/dep-weight.py` have positive-control
  logic but no `--self-test` entry point, so nothing verifies the control
  itself still works.
- No CI step fails when a *new* reporting tool ships without `--self-test`.
  Prefer a mechanical check (enumerate `tools/*.py` + `tools/cb-*`, require
  the flag) over a convention nobody can verify.

Carry forward from CB-WP-0002: a self-test that only exercises the happy
path is decorative. Each assertion must name a failure it detects, and the
strongest ones are regression pins on defects that actually occurred —
`cb-cost`'s AC-9 pins the exact `5, 5, 195` case that fooled first-wins
dedup.

## Task: Point adversarial review at measurement, and state its limits

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T03
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "1365b35d-4539-489a-beff-c072221e4702"
```

The review step is specified for tier-L *research*. The errors in this
project are in *measurement and build configuration*, which the review
never formally targets.

**Now supported by two measurements, not an argument.** Reviews cost
$0.66 (CB-WP-0001) and $1.11 (CB-WP-0002) — ~1% of the pass each — and
each found approval-blocking defects. In CB-WP-0002 the review caught a
target that would have made the evidence file certify a broken collector.

Revise InnerLoop §Step 2 so the review target follows the risk: for a
capability whose claim rests on numbers, the review reads the harness and
the evidence file, not only the survey. Keep it one round; state
explicitly what the reviewer must attempt (reproduce the number, identify
what the harness would report if the work silently stopped).

**Added:** state what review *cannot* do, with the case attached. A
reviewer re-derives the author's claims and therefore inherits the
author's sampling. CB-WP-0002's dedup invariant was checked by both
parties on the main transcript and is false in the subagent tree. The
instruction that follows: **a reviewer must re-derive on a different
sample than the author used**, and where only one sample exists, say so
rather than reporting a clean verify.

## Phase B — Session economics

## Task: Measure session shape before prescribing it

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T04
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "382724e6-efd5-4ef8-a438-9d31a65dacdb"
```

**Premise revised — the original conclusion was wrong.** This task was
written to prescribe one task per session on the theory that cost ≈
turns × mean_context and mean_context grows with turns, making long
sessions quadratic. CB-WP-0002 measured it:

| segment | turns | mean context | total | $/turn |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| start → compact 1 | 136 | 304,178 | $62.19 | **$0.457** |
| compact 1 → compact 2 | 202 | 193,493 | $30.01 | **$0.149** |

`/compact` cut context 542,991 → 19,974 tokens (**27×**), and the 202
turns after it cost less than half the 136 before. Sessions are
**bounded**-quadratic: cost grows with context between compactions and
resets at each one. The failure mode is a long *uncompacted* session, not
a long one.

So the deliverable is no longer a policy derived from a theory. **Measure
the two remedies against each other first**, using `make cost`:

- cost of a compaction (the summarization call) plus the post-compact
  ramp, versus
- cost of a fresh session, including the cold-start re-read of committed
  artifacts that a fresh session must pay.

Then write `specs/SessionShape.md` with whichever wins, and the number.
Also carry over what is already measured and independent of that
question: 0 of 330 tool calls in CB-WP-0001 were batched into a
multi-call turn, and batching is free.

Every claim in the spec carries the measurement it rests on — this spec
exists because the numbers were surprising, and one of them has already
overturned the advice this task was created to give.

Unblocked: `tools/cb-cost.py` exists and `make cost` reports per-task
attribution.

## Task: Replace the dead token budget with a live cost budget

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T05
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "26c920ee-2c09-4b45-a908-4d343532db09"
```

The global 8k soft / 10k hard per-task token budget was never referenced
or enforced during CB-WP-0001, and T08 exceeded it by orders of magnitude
with no signal. It is dead policy: it implies a control that does not
exist.

Replace it with a budget in USD, the unit `make cost` now makes
measurable, with a defined action on breach and a way to observe the
breach **at the time it happens** rather than in a retrospective. If no
such in-flight observation is possible, say so and delete the budget
rather than restating it.

**Calibration data now exists.** Per-task cost on CB-WP-0001 ranged
$1.29 (T09) to $21.02 (T08), with 32.5% of spend unattributed to any
task. Note the constraint this creates: a budget can only bind on the
67.5% that attribution reaches, and attribution is only computable
*after* the commit that closes a task. Any budget claiming to fire
mid-task must explain what it reads.

Unblocked: depends on CB-WP-0002, now complete.

## Phase C — Remove or fix the rest

## Task: Resolve the chaos roll

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T06
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "8f3a6147-54e8-48f9-8543-c13b0e0b0278"
```

The d10 tier roll has now been rolled across two workplans (CB-WP-0001:
9; CB-WP-0002: 2) and has **never** triggered the override, as expected
at 1-in-10. It remains untested while adding a step to every tier
decision.

Decide: raise the rate during a stated calibration period so the
mechanism produces evidence, or delete it. Keeping an unevaluated
mechanism at a rate that prevents its own evaluation is the one option
to reject.

## Task: Make retargeting a reviewed decision

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T07
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "2f702821-7e64-4981-9885-82fa07f638aa"
```

AM-4's new targets were measured at 246,250 and set at 250,000 **in the
same commit, by the implementer, after seeing the number**. The
reasoning was recorded and is defensible, but the structure is exactly
what the loop exists to prevent.

Add to InnerLoop: a metric may not be retargeted in the commit that
measures it. A retarget is an ADR with the old target, the measurement
that motivated the change, and why the new target binds on future work
rather than merely passing present work. Apply retroactively to AM-4a
and AM-4b — either ratify them by ADR or change them.

**Sharpened by CB-WP-0002, which did this three times in one pass.**
AC-1 moved $92.21 → $92.87 → $93.32, each time in the commit that
discovered the discrepancy. Those retargets were *correct* — the target
was wrong and the instrument was right — which is precisely why a blanket
prohibition is the wrong rule. Distinguish the two cases:

- **target corrected because the instrument disproved it** — legitimate,
  requires the instrument's output in the commit; and
- **target moved because the implementation missed it** — requires an ADR.

The rule must separate these without relying on the implementer's
self-report of which one it was.

## Task: Give provisional items an expiry

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T08
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "c2ee91ee-e551-48a7-b1a9-477c34c0690c"
```

Ten U-items plus GR-E02's "successes" are marked `provisional: true`
with no owner and no review date, so they can shape the kernel
indefinitely while looking handled.

Add an owner and a raised-on date to each provisional item, and make
`make coverage` report their age. Decide what happens when one goes
stale — the useful answer is probably that CI warns and the evidence
file must list them, not that the build breaks.

## Task: Strengthen the coverage gate beyond tag-counting

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T09
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "69ccc9ec-dc35-481c-8065-cef040f07f50"
```

`make coverage` compares rule IDs in the spec against `covers:` lists.
It proves no rule is unclaimed and no claimed rule is invented. It does
**not** prove a scenario exercises the rule it names, so 58/58 is weaker
evidence than it reads as.

Cheapest real strengthening to evaluate first: require every GR-id in a
`covers:` list to also appear in a doc comment in the aggregate, making
the spec→code→scenario chain mechanical rather than asserted. Consider
mutation-style checking (does removing the rule's code break the
scenario that claims it?) and cost it before adopting — `make cost` can
now price the evaluation itself.

## Task: Fix the price sheet's time-boxed rate before 2026-08-31

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T11
status: todo
priority: medium
state_hub_task_id: "809215d8-8a5c-4b10-9445-9bc6db9bda42"
```

**New, from CB-WP-0002.** `benchmarks/baselines/model-prices.toml`
encodes Sonnet at 3.00/15.00 with the intro rate 2.00/10.00 as a **TOML
comment**. A collector reading the sheet — which `cb-cost` does — silently
uses the wrong number. Today this costs $0.17 on a $93.32 pass (0.19%).

The deadline is real: **on 2026-08-31 the intro rate expires**, and the
comment and the data disagree in the opposite direction. Whoever reads the
sheet after that date gets a defensible number by accident rather than by
construction.

Give the schema a representation for a dated rate, and make the staleness
rule (§1a: refresh on price change or after 90 days) executable rather
than prose — it currently has no check at all, and every M-D2-CST verdict
inherits it. This is the same defect class the cost survey levelled at the
State Hub: a schema that cannot hold the fact it needs.

## Task: Retrospective

```task
id: CB-WP-0003-T10
status: todo
priority: low
state_hub_task_id: "f43de208-92b1-4f0e-9236-a9d27f3ec451"
```

Revise `specs/InnerLoop.md` to v1.2 from this pass.

**The original question is already answered, and the answer was no.**
This task asked whether, after making rules executable, the next error
would still slip through and of what class. CB-WP-0002 ran first and
supplied two data points: the next errors were **not** harness-does-nothing.
They were trusted arithmetic over real data (which a positive control
passes) and a property verified on the large sample and assumed on the
small one (which adversarial review reproduces rather than catches).

So the question for this retrospective is the harder successor:
**is the set of mechanisms now complete, or is each new pass still finding
a new class?** Seven error instances are on record across three classes.
If this pass produces an eighth in a fourth class, the honest conclusion
is that class-by-class hardening does not converge, and the loop should
optimize for *cheap detection and correction* rather than for prevention —
which is a different design.

Record the count either way. A retrospective that reports only what was
fixed, and not whether the fixing is converging, is the same shape of
false assurance this workplan exists to remove.