clay-borg/workplans/CB-WP-0030-a-number-that-does-not-move.md

id	kind	title	status
CB-WP-0030	process	A number that does not move: a control for the wrong-subject family	ready

Purpose

structural tier  M   (changes how the loop constrains its own operation —
                      it adds an admissibility requirement, ADR-0006 D5)
chaos            d8 = 7  → no override
declared tier    M

Declaration 1 of chaos window 3, opened 2026-08-07 at d8 by ADR-0017.

The family, with every instance

Seven claims in this project have been wrong in the same way. CB-EV-0019 §1 named it: this project's arithmetic errors are not in the arithmetic.

#	pass	the claim	what was wrong	caught by
1	CB-WP-0021	csv costs 21,613 against 3,798 of headroom	AM-4a never sees that code	re-deriving in ADR-0011
2	→ ground-game	"12 in the file"	a sum with no deal table	the recipient
3	CB-WP-0018	SOLVE offered on a face-down Problem	the wrong condition named	implementing the ruling
4	CB-WP-0025	112–161 µs per node	the timer bracketed whole games	adversarial review
5	CB-WP-0025	the game is too easy at 5–6 seats	a win rate attributed to the game	adversarial review
6	CB-WP-0029	2 Focus/Blame conflicts	compared other players' discs	re-reading the check
7	ADR-0017	window 2 had zero overrides	never counted; cited 4×	writing the verdict

What will not work, measured before proposing anything

facts-check has a real gap and it is not this one. It reports 62 untagged literal copies across 7 registry keys and fails on none of them — a drift surface it names and does not close.

Closing it would have caught at most one of the seven. Instance 1's denominator was a registry fact and was correct; the error was that AM-4a does not cover the code. Instances 2, 4, 5, 6 were fresh measurements — no registry key existed, and a provenance tag reproduces a wrong subject faithfully.

A tag proves a number came from somewhere. It cannot prove the somewhere was the right place.

The untagged surface is worth closing on its own merits, and bundling it here would let this pass claim a victory it did not win. Named as separate work, not done here.

What did work, and it is one thing

Read the caught by column. Every instance was caught when the number was computed a second time by something with a different purpose — a later pass, a reviewer, the recipient, or the author re-reading.

Two of them, 4 and 5, share a sharper property: the claim was tested against a variation.

• #4's cost fell as branching rose. A per-node cost cannot do that. The tell was in the published output.
• #5's win rate was attributed to the game; a second policy on the same deals gave 0% where the first gave 100%.

And #1 has it too: vary which crates are in scope and the budget changes, which is the whole error.

So the control is to generalise the thing this project already builds after each instance — RetrospectiveAnalysis §4.1's policy panel, CB-WP-0029's attack-value sweep — and require it before:

A measured claim must name the variable it depends on, and show the measurement moving with it. A number that does not move when its subject moves is measuring something else.

Honest yield: 3 or 4 of 7, and it catches the two that travelled furthest. It does not catch #7 (a count never made) or #3 (not a number). Claiming it closes the family would be the family's own error applied to itself.

Task: decide the rule and its limits

id: CB-WP-0030-T01
status: todo
priority: high

decisions/ADR-0018-*.md.

• State the rule and where it binds: register findings that carry arithmetic, and anything leaving the repo.
• State the yield honestly, instance by instance, including what it misses. A control whose reach is overstated is worse than none, because it stops people looking.
• Decide whether it is a gate or a discipline. A sensitivity claim is prose; loop-lint can check presence, never adequacy. Say which half is mechanical.
• Do not bundle the untagged-facts surface. Name it as separate.

Task: the rule, in the spec that governs findings

id: CB-WP-0030-T02
status: todo
priority: high

specs/GameDesign.md §1 already requires a reproduction that exists, has the ruled shape, and can fail. This adds the fourth clause, because §1.2's row-level rule was itself born from instance 2 and covers only sums.

Controls:

• the clause names the variable and the expected direction, or it is a sentence with no content;
• the existing three clauses are unchanged — this is an addition, and a rewrite would silently drop what earlier instances bought.

Task: make the mechanical half mechanical

id: CB-WP-0030-T03
status: todo
priority: high

loop-lint fails when a register row of an arithmetic kind lacks a sensitivity line.

Controls:

• the check must fail on a real row, demonstrated by mutation — a lint that cannot go red is decoration (ADR-0006 D3, ADR-0017 D2);
• it checks presence, not adequacy, and its output says so, so nobody reads a green lint as "the claim was verified";
• existing register rows are brought under it or explicitly exempted with a reason — a rule that only binds future rows leaves the six instances unprotected.

Task: evidence

id: CB-WP-0030-T04
status: todo
priority: medium

evidence/CB-EV-0028-*.md.

• Re-run the seven instances against the rule and report how many it would have caught. If the answer is below 3, the rule is not the one.
• What the untagged surface is worth, since it was measured here and deferred.
• Whether a lint that checks presence is worth having at all, or whether it trains the eye to stop at green.