The plan document decided what the contract is and who owns it, and said of
itself that nothing in it was implemented. This states the same six elements as
numbered paragraphs with MUST and SHOULD, in the form a checker can read, and
adds the three things the plan layer had no way to carry: concept identity as
the (bundle_id, concept_id) tuple with a content digest per excerpt, the closed
adjudication state set with unknown written explicitly rather than collapsed,
and the prohibition on reaching the verdict layer with a query-time retrieval
tool.
The plan document is not rewritten to match. It records why; this binds. Two
copies of the same rules drift, so the plan carries a pointer instead.
Second order 20260825T133057Z-193098605-from-.claude, carrying an operator
directive that how an agent finds information in a bundle must be
token-efficient, as a property the contract carries rather than a later
optimisation. The order prescribed the goal, left the form to us, and invited
the objection that "token-efficiency" is the wrong abstraction for a generic
layer. It is, so the element is not called that.
C6 — retrieval cost is declared: instrument, budget, denominator, breaking
point. It binds the READING side (the order's property 1): a conformant
consumption skill states the bound its cut targets, what a typical answer costs
against the whole-bundle denominator by a named instrument, which way cost
scales, and the corpus size at which its strategy stops fitting its budget.
Each is re-runnable as a command (property 2), and the instrument must
reproduce known-good figures before its own are believed — C3's second
corollary applied to a positive quantity.
Why not "token efficiency": a token is one encoder family's unit and fixing it
would adopt one vendor's arithmetic as everyone's (the move §3 already refuses);
"efficient" is a comparative with the denominator missing; and efficiency is a
property of a run while a contract binds a document. Reading a whole bundle
stays legal — doing it UNDECLARED does not.
Measured for this revision, all against stated refs: the gap was real (one
pre-revision hit, on an unrelated sense of "costs"); the cited 250 785 /
430 144 / 112 116 figures and their prior validation against three known-good
values hold; the reading model navigates rather than searches. A fifth
measurement the order did not know, prompted by vegnormal-okf's coord message:
IndexPolicy.per_directory is a JUDGING field (required_indexes/violations) —
no code path here emits a nested index, and materialize refuses STRICT_V1 for
exactly that reason. So a permitted shape is not an emitted shape, and §2 now
says a cost figure inherits the ref rather than the profile.
Bundle SHAPE stays with the repo that produces it (O2); no instrument is
blessed; no engine, ranker or cutter is designed. No src/, no bump, no tag.
Plan work only, per operator decision 2026-08-25 relayed through .claude
(order 20260825T122454Z-4632317874). No code, no module, no version bump.
Fixes four things a bundle-specific consumption skill can be held to:
- The contract's five bundle-independent elements: source marking, pin
anchoring by ref rather than version, denominator reporting, the
script-cuts/agent-judges division of labour, and (added here, grounded
in a measurement in a second corpus) conditionally-written fields,
whose absence is a measurement rather than a fact.
- Architecture: a parallel document, not a field on BundleProfile. The
profile is a construction-time gate in one runtime and deliberately
excludes judgement vocabulary. Drift is prevented by shared profile
identity plus a pin plus a requirement that structural claims be
re-measured by command, never restated in prose. IndexPolicy's
entries_match_directory binds the consumption side unchanged.
- The source-marking vocabulary: five required values plus a declared
extension mechanism. [verified-in-target] is an extension, not a
required value, because it presupposes a target outside the bundle
and a measured corpus exists where that presupposition fails.
- A conformance checklist for a bundle-specific consumption skill.
The order's premise that the 2026-08-13 ratification was unfounded does
not survive re-measurement: the supporting grep was scoped to 16 of 639
files and missed the tracked state file that records the decision. The
real defect is narrower and belongs to another repo — the document its
own engine names as requirements owner has not been updated. Reported
by coord, not edited (O2).
