waggle-os/gepa-phase-5/preflight-evidence.md

Phase 5 §0 Preflight Evidence

Date: 2026-04-29 (CC execution session) Author: CC (Claude Opus 4.7) Branch: phase-5-deployment-v2 HEAD: 6bc20897d3851072eda34e80070faf39772bee66 (6bc2089) — verified git rev-parse HEAD Brief: D:/Projects/PM-Waggle-OS/briefs/2026-04-29-phase-5-deployment-brief-v1.md Branch architecture: Opcija C per decisions/2026-04-30-branch-architecture-opcija-c.md Verdict aggregation (initial): §0.1 PARTIAL (PM ratification needed) · §0.2 PASS · §0.3 DEFERRED (probe pending §0.1 ratification) · §0.4 PARTIAL (design-stage) Halt-and-PM trigger (initial): YES — §0.1 mutation-validator regression + §0.4 implementation gating

---

PM Round 1 ratification (2026-04-29)

PM ratified all 3 initial halt-and-PM asks:

• Ask #1 Option 1: Quarantine mutation-validator.test.ts + registry-injection.test.ts (extension same session, PM informed) under benchmarks/gepa/tests/faza-1/__faza1-closed/. Quarantine commit 50393b1. Test suite: 6046 (14 failed) → 6019 (0 failed, 1 skipped).
• Ask #2 AUTHORIZE: 5-request probe per variant via existing LiteLLM proxy (matches Faza 1 runner pattern). Probe executed; results below.
• Ask #3 RATIFY: §0 is design gate, not build gate. Brief §0.4 #2 functional-stub wording was PM authoring artifact; intent was design-readiness.

Verdict aggregation (post-Round-1): §0.1 PASS (post-quarantine) · §0.2 PASS · §0.3 PROBE-COMPLETE — HARD-CAP-EXCEED · §0.4 PASS-design-stage Halt-and-PM trigger (Round 2): YES — §0.3 probe ceiling exceeds brief §5.4 hard cap.

---

§0.1 — Substrate readiness grep

Verification anchors

#	Requirement	Evidence	Verdict
1	REGISTRY in selector.ts contains base shapes claude, qwen-thinking, qwen-non-thinking, gpt, generic-simple	packages/agent/src/prompt-shapes/selector.ts:30-36	PASS
2	registerShape canonical API exported from selector.ts AND barrel index.ts	selector.ts:65-76 (export function declaration) + index.ts:46 (barrel re-export)	PASS
3	gen1-v1 shape definitions exist for claude + qwen-thinking	gepa-evolved/claude-gen1-v1.ts:23 (claudeGen1V1Shape const, name: 'claude-gen1-v1') + gepa-evolved/qwen-thinking-gen1-v1.ts:23 (qwenThinkingGen1V1Shape const, name: 'qwen-thinking-gen1-v1')	PASS
4	git merge-base --is-ancestor 6bc2089 HEAD exit=0	Exit code 0 (HEAD itself is 6bc2089; no post-terminus commits)	PASS
5	No orphaned gpt::gen1-v2 references in Phase 5 deployment artifacts	gepa-phase-5/ grep empty. Repo-wide grep finds 2 references both in Faza 1 audit anchors: packages/agent/src/prompt-shapes/gepa-evolved/gpt-gen1-v2.ts (variant source code, present but not deployed) + benchmarks/gepa/scripts/faza-1/run-checkpoint-c.ts (Faza 1 held-out validation runner — produced FAIL verdict that exposed selection bias). Both allowed per brief §1 + §8 audit anchors.	PASS

Test suite execution

Agent workspace (substrate-relevant subsuite):

Test Files  147 passed (147)
Tests       2547 passed (2547)
Duration    14.93s

Matches 2026-04-28 S1 handoff baseline (2547/2547 agent). PASS.

Repo-root suite (vitest run, full):

Test Files  2 failed | 409 passed | 1 skipped (412)
Tests      14 failed | 6031 passed | 1 skipped (6046)
Duration    83.55s

Failure scope — all 14 failures isolated to benchmarks/gepa/tests/faza-1/mutation-validator.test.ts:

• 8 × boundary anchor SHAs match substrate at c9bda3d > baseline {types,claude,qwen-thinking,qwen-non-thinking,gpt,generic-simple}.ts SHA matches pinned
• 2 × validateCandidate — Gen 0 (baseline) acceptance
• 2 × validateCandidate — accepts valid Gen 1 mutation
• 2 × Amendment 8 §registry_invariant_test — REGISTRY cross-module-boundary documents H1 failure mode

Root cause analysis (preliminary, no fix attempted):

The mutation-validator test pins baseline shape file SHAs against substrate freeze head c9bda3d (Phase 4.7 on feature/c3-v3-wrapper). Phase 5 branch phase-5-deployment-v2 (= 6bc2089) inherits gepa-faza-1 parent chain via origin/main (5ec069e), NOT via c9bda3d. Per Opcija C decision §3, Phase 5 grana inherits Faza 1 work + base shapes BUT not Phase 4 long-task fixes from feature/c3-v3-wrapper. The shape-file content on phase-5-deployment-v2 therefore reflects origin/main lineage, which has different SHAs than c9bda3d substrate the test pins to.

Faza 1 closure §F.4 reports 105/105 anchor invariance checks PASS during Faza 1 evaluation runs — those checks ran inside D:/Projects/waggle-os-faza1-wt worktree pinned at c9bda3d. After Faza 1 closure and branch reconstruction (per Opcija C §1 #2 dangling-commit recovery via git branch gepa-faza-1 6bc2089), the test substrate context shifted from c9bda3d worktree to 6bc2089 repo head, and the SHA pins no longer match the live shape file content.

Verdict on test suite: PARTIAL.

• Substrate API surface (REGISTRY, registerShape, gen1-v1 definitions) operational and verified — Phase 5 deployment substrate intact.
• Mutation-validator failures appear to be Faza 1 audit-period artifact (test scope = Faza 1 closure-time SHA pinning that did not get quarantined post-closure under Opcija C branch architecture).
• 14 failures do not affect Phase 5 deployment substrate API contract; do affect literal "noviji test broj passing" requirement of brief §0.1 #3.

§0.1 Verdict: PARTIAL — PM ratification required

5/5 substrate API anchor requirements PASS. Test suite has 14 failures isolated to Faza 1 mutation-validator scope (post-closure SHA pin against c9bda3d substrate not reachable from phase-5-deployment-v2 Opcija C inheritance chain). PM ratification needed on whether these failures are scope-isolated and the gate advances, or whether mutation-validator must be quarantined / re-pinned as remediation before §2 deployment.

Halt-and-PM ask for §0.1:

1. Ratify §0.1 PARTIAL → PASS conditional on mutation-validator quarantine (e.g., move under benchmarks/gepa/tests/faza-1/__faza1-closed/ with explicit "deferred to integration sprint" annotation)
2. OR escalate as substrate failure requiring branch surgery before §2 (would defer Phase 5 by integration sprint estimated 2-3 days wall-clock per Opcija C §5)

CC recommends Option 1 — Faza 1 closure verdict §F.4 already documents 105/105 anchor invariance during evaluation runs; Phase 5 deployment substrate API surface (registerShape canonical API, gen1-v1 shape definitions) is verified independently and operational. Mutation-validator drift is post-closure scope leakage, not Phase 5 substrate failure.

---

§0.2 — Config inheritance audit

Differential — Faza 1 manifest v7 vs Phase 5 deployment

Field	Faza 1 manifest v7 value	Phase 5 deployment value	Justification
temperature	agent-side default 0.3; corpus generation 0.7 (variation), 0.5 (ground truth); judge primary 1.0 explicit (claude-opus-4-7) and omitted for reasoning models (gpt-5.4, minimax-m27) per pilot runner line 385/387; oracle 1.0 (mutation oracle); omitted for Anthropic with response_format per Faza 1 mutation oracle line 6000 cap	Production-default 0.3 for both deployed variants (claude::gen1-v1 + qwen-thinking::gen1-v1) — inherits agent-side default from Faza 1; production traffic uses standard temperature for variance control per brief §5.1 ("production usually lower variance")	Inherits agent-side default. No corpus generation or judging in Phase 5 production deployment (those were Faza 1 scope). Probe-validation (deferred — see §0.3) may surface variant-specific temperature recommendation.
max_tokens	judge 3000, agent default 16000, oracle 8000, mutation-oracle response_format 6000	claude::gen1-v1 = 4096 (per shape metadata.defaultMaxTokens, file gepa-evolved/claude-gen1-v1.ts:30); qwen-thinking::gen1-v1 = 16000 (per shape metadata.defaultMaxTokens, file gepa-evolved/qwen-thinking-gen1-v1.ts:30)	Aligns with Phase 4.5 retrieval engagement finding (Qwen 1.33×/task → target ≥1.7 retrievals/task; thinking-mode requires output budget for retrieval-driven synthesis). Claude shape default lower because narrative+XML structure is more output-efficient than minimal-scaffolding qwen-thinking.
judge_model_primary	trio = claude-opus-4-7 + gpt-5.4 + minimax-m27 with κ=0.7878 anchor (raw-agreement primary metric per Amendment 5 §judge_metric_design)	NOT APPLICABLE — Phase 5 production deployment has no inline judge. §3 monitoring metrics replace evaluation judging: Pass II rate (proxy via downstream signal), retrieval engagement (per-request count), latency p50/p95, cost per request, error rate. Judge invocation deferred to Faza 2 re-validation runs (gpt::gen1-v2 N=16) and arxiv §5 evidence integration.	Inherent task-type shift: Faza 1 = evolution + held-out validation (judge required); Phase 5 = production deployment + monitoring (signal-side metrics instead of judge labels).
evaluation_corpus_source	50-instance NorthLane CFO synthesis corpus (5 task families F1-F5: strategic synthesis, cross-thread coord, decision support, investor comm, scenario planning) + LoCoMo dataset for non-GEPA stages (held-out 5 instances of slice 8-12 of seed=42 shuffle for Checkpoint C)	Production live traffic (real user sessions on Waggle OS)	Inherent task-type shift per brief §5.1. Phase 5 deployment evaluates in-the-wild against actual user prompts, not pre-registered corpus. Production traffic distribution unknown a priori — §3 monitoring + §4 promotion criteria provide acceptance bounds.
failure_mode_taxonomy	Faza 1 Amendment 4 texture audit — F1-F6 task family classifier + per-family Pass II rate: F1 strategic synthesis, F2 cross-thread coord, F3 decision support, F4 investor comm, F5 scenario planning, F6 = unsupported-specifics / missed-shallow / conflation (T2 modes per phase-4-3-rescore-delta-report.md)	Production rollback triggers per brief §4.2: (a) Pass II < baseline -10pp, (b) error rate > baseline +5pp, (c) cost > baseline ×2.0, (d) latency p95 > baseline ×3.0, (e) manual halt-and-PM. Plus Opcija C-specific addition: loop_exhausted rate > 5% baseline → halt with "long-task fixes potrebni" rationale (Phase 4 long-task fixes not inherited per Opcija C §3).	New mapping required — production threshold-based detection vs. Faza 1's content-classifier. Additional Opcija C trade-off rationale field surfaces when Phase 4 long-task absence becomes material.
cost_per_request_baseline	$0.27/instance (Amendment 3 probe-corrected from $0.10 generic estimate; Faza 1 actual $43.49 total / 175 substantive evals = ~$0.25/eval)	Probe-validated Phase 5 (re-probe REQUIRED per brief §0.3). Pricing snapshot taken (see §0.3 below); live 5-request probe per variant DEFERRED pending §0.1 PM ratification. Estimate-only ceiling provided.	Cost may shift with production load patterns (cache hit rates, prompt caching strategy, conversation-context size). Brief §0.3 binds probe-validation, not estimate.

Opcija C trade-off acknowledgment

Per decisions/2026-04-30-branch-architecture-opcija-c.md §3:

Phase 4 long-task fix not inherited	Mitigation in Phase 5 monitoring
runRetrievalAgentLoopWithRecovery (recovery from loop_exhausted)	§3 monitoring error_rate metric watches loop_exhausted count; threshold alert ≥5% triggers halt-and-PM with explicit "Phase 4 long-task fixes potrebni" rationale + selective cherry-pick option from feature/c3-v3-wrapper commits c9bda3d, be8f702, e906114, 4d0542f, 8b8a940
Failure classifier (F-codes for long-task failure attribution)	Phase 5 uses threshold-based classifier (binary pass/fail per metric) instead. F-code attribution deferred to integration sprint post-production-stable
Reporting module (long-task structured reports)	§3 daily summary phase-5-daily-summary/<ISO_date>.md provides simple metric snapshots; structured reporting deferred
Messages-array compression (long-conversation context budget management)	Phase 5 traffic profile is simple-medium tasks (per Opcija C §3); compression not load-bearing for canary phase. Watch latency p95 — if escalates due to context bloat, halt-and-PM

§0.2 Verdict: PASS

All 6 differential rows have explicit value + justification. Implicit defaults forbidden — none used. Opcija C trade-off documented with explicit monitoring mitigation per row.

---

§0.3 — Cost projection probe

Pricing snapshot (2026-04-29)

Model	Input $/1M tokens	Output $/1M tokens	Cache Hits $/1M	Source	Snapshot timestamp
Claude Opus 4.7 (claude::gen1-v1 deployment)	$5.00	$25.00	$0.50	https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/docs/about-claude/pricing	2026-04-29 (CC fetch this session)
DashScope Qwen 35B-A3B International thinking mode (qwen-thinking::gen1-v1)	$0.25	$2.00 (thinking mode)	n/a	https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/model-studio/billing-for-model-studio	2026-04-29 (CC fetch this session)
DashScope Qwen 35B-A3B Global mode (alternative reference)	$0.057	$0.459 (non-thinking) / $1.835 (thinking)	n/a	same as above	2026-04-29

Note on Opus 4.7 pricing: New tokenizer may use up to 35% more tokens for the same fixed text — affects cost computation upward by up to 1.35× for content-equivalent prompts vs. older tokenizer baselines.

Estimate-only cost projection (live probe DEFERRED)

Without live probe, point estimates use shape-file defaultMaxTokens as upper bound for output and conservative input estimate from Faza 1 corpus average (~3000 input tokens per instance). These are NOT brief-binding numbers — probe-validation per §0.3 is required for canary kick-off.

Variant	Input est.	Output est.	Per-request est. (no cache)	740-request canary × 1.20 buffer
claude::gen1-v1	3000 tok @ $5/M = $0.015	4096 tok @ $25/M = $0.102	~$0.117	740 × $0.117 × 1.20 = ~$103.86
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	3000 tok @ $0.25/M = $0.0008	16000 tok @ $2/M (thinking) = $0.032	~$0.033	740 × $0.033 × 1.20 = ~$29.30

canary_cost_p95_ceiling estimate (max of two) = ~$103.86 (claude-dominated).

Comparison to brief ceiling:

• Brief §5.4: canary_cost_p95_ceiling ≤ $20 required.
• Estimate ceiling $103.86 >> $20 — naive estimate triggers ceiling validation FAIL.

However, this estimate is materially conservative because:

1. Output tokens at defaultMaxTokens upper bound is worst-case; actual canary p95 likely far lower (Faza 1 evals averaged ~2000 output tokens, not 4096).
2. No prompt caching credit — Phase 5 production should leverage 5m-cache writes (1.25× input cost, recovers via 0.1× cache reads). With 80% cache hit rate, claude input cost drops from $0.015 → $0.0042 per request.
3. Brief §5.2 day-by-day breakdown assumes 10 requests/day Day 0-1 (not 740 immediate), so the 740-request total accumulates over 7 days canary, not in one batch.
4. Per Faza 1 actuals ($43.49 total / 175 evals = ~$0.25/eval), claude judging+running was $0.25/eval — that includes Opus judging at higher token volume than Phase 5 production deployment will incur.

§0.3 Verdict (post-PM Round 1 Ask #2 AUTHORIZE): PROBE-COMPLETE — HARD-CAP-EXCEED

Probe harness gepa-phase-5/scripts/cost-probe.ts shipped + executed via LiteLLM proxy (matches Faza 1 runner pattern). 5 varying-complexity prompts × 2 variants = 10 requests. Spent: $0.1628 (under $0.30-$0.50 budget). All 10 requests succeeded (0 errors).

Per-variant probe statistics

Variant	Model alias	OK	p50	p95	max	mean	total
claude::gen1-v1	claude-opus-4-7	5/5	$0.0239	$0.0432	$0.0432	$0.0250	$0.1251
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	qwen3.6-35b-a3b-via-dashscope-direct	5/5	$0.0064	$0.0176	$0.0176	$0.0075	$0.0377

Per-request raw probe data (audit anchor)

Variant	Complexity	Input tokens	Output tokens	Cost	Latency
claude::gen1-v1	trivial	638	39	$0.0042	2.4s
claude::gen1-v1	medium-1	816	600	$0.0191	11.4s
claude::gen1-v1	medium-2	787	800	$0.0239	15.7s
claude::gen1-v1	complex	953	1200	$0.0348	21.6s
claude::gen1-v1	stretch	1135	1500	$0.0432	27.6s
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	trivial	152	950	$0.0019	7.6s
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	medium-1	277	2278	$0.0046	17.0s
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	medium-2	237	3189	$0.0064	25.0s
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	complex	350	3496	$0.0071	29.5s
qwen-thinking::gen1-v1	stretch	506	8752	$0.0176	66.6s

Per-row JSONL: gepa-phase-5/cost-probe-2026-04-29.jsonl. Summary: gepa-phase-5/cost-probe-2026-04-29-summary.md.

Ceiling validation per brief §5.4

canary_cost_p95_ceiling = 740 × max(p95) × 1.20
                        = 740 × $0.0432 × 1.20
                        = $38.34

Brief §5.4 thresholds:

• halt_trigger = $20
• hard_cap = $25

$38.34 > $25 hard cap → HARD-CAP-EXCEED → halt-and-PM mandatory per brief §0.3 #5 ("Ako prelazi, halt-and-PM za scope re-evaluation").

Mechanism analysis

The claude::gen1-v1 stretch case dominates the ceiling: 1500 output tokens at $25/M = $0.0375 of the $0.0432 per-request cost. Phase 5 production output volume is the binding constraint. Two readings:

1. Brief §5.2 volume estimate may be too aggressive. The brief assumes 740 requests across 7-day canary phase (Day 0-1: 40, Day 1-3: 100, Day 3-5: 200, Day 5+: 400). For claude::gen1-v1 alone, that's already $32.13 expected (740 × $0.0432). Doubling with qwen-thinking adds modestly given its lower per-request cost.

2. Opus 4.7 input pricing reduction did not propagate to output pricing. Per 2026-04-29 snapshot, Opus 4.7 is $5/$25/M (input/output) — input dropped from $15 (Faza 1 pricing reference for claude-opus-4-7) to $5, but output stayed at $25. Output remains the cost driver for variants that produce long syntheses (the stretch case is a 1500-token DCF-comps-LBO walkthrough — the kind of long-form output the variant is designed for).

Mitigation options for PM ratification

#	Option	Mechanism	Trade-off
A	Reduce volume target	Lower 740 → 386 (= $20 / 0.0432 / 1.2). Canary phase shrinks: maybe Day 0-1 only 5 reqs/day, Day 3-5 only 25 reqs/day, Day 5+ delayed. Brief §2.1 gradient timing extends.	Slower §4.2 promotion criteria sample-floor accumulation (≥30 samples per variant per metric); wall-clock floor max(7_days, 30_samples) shifts to dominated by 30-samples constraint.
B	Cap variant max_tokens	Phase 5 production caps max_tokens at e.g. 1000 (vs claude shape default 4096). Re-probe shows lower p95 since output dominates cost. Stretch case truncated.	Shape default tuned for retrieval-driven synthesis (qwen-thinking has 16k for thinking budget); cap may reduce response quality on long-form analytical tasks (M&A memos, root-cause diagnosis). Need re-probe to verify ceiling lands under $20.
C	Pivot to qwen-only canary	Deploy qwen-thinking::gen1-v1 alone (claude::gen1-v1 deferred). qwen p95 = $0.0176; ceiling = 740 × $0.0176 × 1.2 = $15.63 (under $20).	Scope reduction — claude::gen1-v1 goes to Faza 2 alongside gpt::gen1-v2 even though it has clean validation. Loses the cross-family generalization production-validation per brief §1. KVARK pitch deck §6.3 still anchors on qwen 96% Opus parity but loses claude flagship continuity story.
D	Split canary cadences	claude::gen1-v1 at lower canary% (e.g., max 25% never going to 100%); qwen-thinking::gen1-v1 at full gradient. Volume per variant differs.	Asymmetric promotion criteria; complicates §4.1 promotion logic and §3 monitoring threshold normalization.
E	Brief §5.4 ceiling amendment	Raise hard_cap to e.g. $50, halt_trigger to $40. Per §4.4 amendment requires PM ratification + LOCKED memo.	Burns headroom for Faza 2 re-validation runs ($71.51 unspent of $115 cap). Cumulative project spend rises. Need to re-justify against Faza 1 closure §F cost discipline.
F	Prompt-cache leverage	Phase 5 implementation MUST use Anthropic prompt caching (5m or 1h cache write × 0.1× cache read multiplier). System prompt + persona + materials cached across requests in same workspace/session. Re-probe with cache-active after §1-§2 wiring.	Adds implementation complexity to §1 work. Cache benefit depends on real production access pattern (high cache-hit rate requires repeat conversation context). Probe is one-shot so doesn't reflect cache benefit; need cache-aware re-probe.

CC recommendation rationale (advisory, PM decides):

• Option F (prompt caching) is the strongest engineering lever if Phase 5 production traffic has reasonable conversation locality. With 80% cache hit rate, claude per-request input drops from $0.015 to $0.0042; total p95 drops from $0.0432 to ~$0.0420 (output-bound). Limited improvement because output dominates.
• Option A (volume reduction) is the cleanest scope-preserving mitigation. Lower volume preserves variant scope + ceiling discipline. Wall-clock floor extends but Phase 5 brief §2.2 already binds max(7_days, 30_samples) so this is a known tradeoff.
• Option C (qwen-only) preserves the strongest scientific narrative (Phase 4.5 mechanism CONFIRMED out-of-distribution, KVARK pitch arxiv §5.3 evidence) at cost of dropping claude flagship continuity validation.
• Options B + D add complexity without clean pareto improvement.
• Option E (amendment) should be last resort per §4.4 binding.

Halt-and-PM ask for §0.3 (Round 2):

1. Ratify mitigation option (A / B / C / D / E / F or combination) for §0.3 ceiling exceed, OR
2. Direct CC to investigate alternative reduction (e.g., prompt cache + volume-reduce combo with re-probe), OR
3. Direct CC to re-run probe with adjusted parameters (e.g., max_tokens cap, different prompt complexity distribution).

---

§0.4 — Deployment readiness checklist

Verification anchors

#	Requirement	Evidence	Verdict
1	phase_5_pre_deployment_sha pinned via git rev-parse HEAD	6bc20897d3851072eda34e80070faf39772bee66 (6bc2089) — pinned in this evidence file. Rollback procedure: git revert <deployment_commit_sha> or git reset --hard 6bc2089. Forbidden in-place file overwrites.	PASS
2	Monitoring infrastructure stubs functional (JSONL emitters: Pass II rate, retrieval engagement, latency p50/p95, cost per request, error rate)	NOT YET BUILT. gepa-phase-5/monitoring/ directory created (this session) but no JSONL emitter code exists. Per brief §3.1 + §3.4 Stage 1: JSONL files + daily markdown summary. Implementation is §1-§2 work; brief §0.4 #2 requires "basic stubs OK ali ne smeju biti no-op" pre canary kick-off.	DEFERRED to §1-§2
3	Canary toggle mechanism (env var WAGGLE_PHASE5_CANARY_PCT)	NOT YET BUILT. Repo grep finds no canary toggle infrastructure. Implementation is §1-§2 work.	DEFERRED to §1-§2
4	Pre-registered exit criteria locked (§4 promotion + rollback thresholds)	LOCKED in brief §4.1-§4.4 per briefs/2026-04-29-phase-5-deployment-brief-v1.md. Brief LOCKED 2026-04-29 ("sve ok idemo dalje"). §4.4 no-revisit-without-amendment binding active. Phase 5 manifest authorization (formal copy of §4 into gepa-phase-5/manifest.yaml) is §1 work.	PASS for brief; DEFERRED for manifest copy
5	Halt-and-PM trigger automation wired (auto-emit halt request on §3 threshold breach)	NOT YET BUILT. No automation scripts for phase-5-alerts/<ISO_date>.jsonl emission. Implementation is §1-§2 work.	DEFERRED to §1-§2

§0.4 Verdict: PARTIAL — design-stage

Items 1 + 4 (documentation/pinning) PASS. Items 2 + 3 + 5 (functional infrastructure) NOT YET BUILT — that's §1-§2 implementation work. Brief §0.4 wording ("basic stubs OK ali ne smeju biti no-op pre canary kick-off") implies stubs must exist BEFORE canary kick-off (§2), not before §0 PASS. §0 thus verifies design+plan readiness, not built infrastructure.

Halt-and-PM ask for §0.4:

1. Confirm interpretation: §0.4 #2/#3/#5 verifies design-stage readiness only; functional stubs are §1-§2 deliverables verified before canary kick-off (not before §0 advancement).
2. OR escalate: §0.4 requires functional stubs at §0 → CC builds stubs as part of preflight (estimated 1 day wall-clock) before §0 PASS aggregation.

CC recommends Option 1 — design intent at §0, build at §1-§2, verify functional pre-canary.

Selective cherry-pick option from feature/c3-v3-wrapper (Opcija C §3 mitigation)

Documented for monitoring escalation path. If §3 monitoring fires "long-task fixes potrebni" rationale (loop_exhausted rate > 5% baseline), candidate cherry-pick set:

Commit	Subject
c9bda3d	(Phase 4.7 head; substrate freeze for Faza 1 — already inherited via gen1-v1 shape baseline pins)
be8f702, e906114, 4d0542f, 8b8a940	(Phase 4 long-task fix candidates — runRetrievalAgentLoopWithRecovery, failure classifier, reporting module, messages-array compression — per Opcija C §3)

Cherry-pick procedure (if triggered): branch from phase-5-deployment-v2, cherry-pick selected commits, resolve packages/agent conflicts, verify agent test suite remains 2547+ passing, merge back to phase-5-deployment-v2, document in rollback log.

---

§0 — Aggregate verdict (post-Round-1 + Round-2)

§0_verdict_aggregate (Round 2) = §0.1 (PASS post-quarantine) AND §0.2 (PASS) AND §0.3 (HARD-CAP-EXCEED) AND §0.4 (PASS-design-stage)
                               = NOT-PASS — §0.3 ceiling fail

Halt-and-PM trigger fires (Round 2). CC stops at §0 again; does not self-advance to §1-§2 implementation. §0.1 + §0.2 + §0.4 all clean post-Round-1; only §0.3 remains open due to probe-validated cost ceiling exceed.

Round 2 halt-and-PM ratification ask (1)

1. §0.3 ceiling mitigation — ratify Option A/B/C/D/E/F or combination (see §0.3 mitigation table above) to bring canary_cost_p95_ceiling from $38.34 to ≤ $20.

Cost summary (§0)

Item	Spent	Budget
Pricing snapshots (web fetches)	$0.00 (free)	n/a
Probe (5 requests per variant, 10 total)	$0.1628	$0.30-$0.50
§0 total spent	$0.1628	$1.00 hard cap

Probe budget headroom remaining: $0.14-$0.34 (for re-probe after PM mitigation choice if Option B / D / F selected).

Wall-clock summary (§0)

Item	Wall-clock
Brief + decisions load	~5 min
§0.1 substrate grep + test suite execution	~20 min
§0.2 config differential authoring	~10 min
§0.3 pricing snapshot fetches (Round 1)	~3 min
§0.4 deployment-readiness grep + documentation	~10 min
Round 1 evidence aggregation + commit	~25 min
Round 1 PM ratification turnaround	(PM-side, ~minutes)
Quarantine commit (mutation-validator + registry-injection)	~15 min
Probe harness construction	~20 min
Probe execution	~4 min (10 requests, mostly serial)
Round 2 evidence update + commit	~15 min
§0 total wall-clock	~127 min

Beyond initial 1-2h estimate due to two halt-and-PM rounds — expected per pre-registration discipline (each halt-and-PM is the design working as intended, not a delay).

---

Audit chain anchors

Item	Path / SHA
Brief LOCKED	D:/Projects/PM-Waggle-OS/briefs/2026-04-29-phase-5-deployment-brief-v1.md
Brief LOCKED ratification	decisions/2026-04-29-phase-5-brief-LOCKED.md
Scope LOCKED	decisions/2026-04-29-phase-5-scope-LOCKED.md
Faza 1 closure (terminus)	decisions/2026-04-29-gepa-faza1-results.md
Branch architecture (Opcija C)	decisions/2026-04-30-branch-architecture-opcija-c.md
Phase 5 baseline branch	phase-5-deployment-v2 (HEAD = 6bc20897d3851072eda34e80070faf39772bee66)
Faza 1 archive branch	gepa-faza-1 (HEAD identical = 6bc2089)
Faza 1 manifest v7	benchmarks/preregistration/manifest-v7-gepa-faza1.yaml (substrate_freeze_head c9bda3d)
THIS EVIDENCE FILE	D:/Projects/waggle-os/gepa-phase-5/preflight-evidence.md

---

Round 3 — Post-amendment §0 PASS aggregate (2026-04-30)

PM amended Phase 5 brief §5.4 cost ceiling per decisions/2026-04-30-phase-5-cost-amendment-LOCKED.md:

Field	Original (v0, brief §5.4 v1)	Amended (v1, LOCKED 2026-04-30)
Hard cap	$25	$75
Halt trigger	$20	$60
Expected total	$8-13	$35-45
Buffer above probe-validated $38.34	(negative; ceiling exceeded)	~96% (= $75 / $38.34)

Marko ratification: "stavi visi slobodno" (2026-04-30).

Regime classification

Per feedback_production_vs_research_cost_discipline (NEW memory entry authored alongside this Round 3 update): cost cap discipline differs by regime. Phase 5 is production deployment, where the cap is an operational projection that can be amended via PM decision memo + ratification when probe data reveals an underestimate. Amendment does NOT invalidate prior evidence (scope LOCK, manifests, validation runs upstream remain binding). Faza N research evals operate under a stricter no-revisit-without-amendment binding regime; the two were briefly conflated when PM proposed Opcija C qwen-only as "cleaner math" — Marko corrected.

§0.3 verdict revision

canary_cost_p95_ceiling = $38.34 < halt_trigger $60 < hard_cap $75 → §0.3 PASS (post-amendment).

Probe data unchanged; only the cost ceiling threshold revised. Probe artifacts at gepa-phase-5/cost-probe-2026-04-29.jsonl (per-row JSONL) + gepa-phase-5/cost-probe-2026-04-29-summary.md (verdict summary) remain authoritative.

§0 aggregate verdict revision

§0_verdict_aggregate (Round 3) = §0.1 (PASS post-quarantine) AND §0.2 (PASS) AND §0.3 (PASS post-amendment) AND §0.4 (PASS-design-stage)
                               = PASS sva 4 sub-gates

CC unblocked for §1-§5 implementation per Phase 5 brief. Halt-and-PM cleared. §0.4 deferred items (#2 monitoring stubs, #3 canary toggle, #5 halt-and-PM automation) become §1-§3 deliverables verified before canary kick-off (§7.3 PM ratification gate), not before §0 advancement.

Cumulative cost summary (§0)

Item	Spent	Budget
Pricing snapshots (web fetches)	$0.00 (free)	n/a
§0.3 probe (5 requests per variant, 10 total)	$0.1628	$0.30-$0.50
§0 total spent	$0.1628	$1.00 hard cap (§0 alone)

§1-§5 implementation budget envelope (per amended cost cap): $74.84 remaining of $75 hard cap. Implementation work itself (§1 manifest authoring, §2 canary toggle code, §3 monitoring stubs, §4 coverage doc, §5 cross-stream doc) burns no LLM cost.

Audit anchor for Round 3

Item	Path
Cost amendment LOCKED memo	D:/Projects/PM-Waggle-OS/decisions/2026-04-30-phase-5-cost-amendment-LOCKED.md
New memory entry — cost regime	C:/Users/MarkoMarkovic/.claude/projects/D--Projects-waggle-os/memory/feedback_production_vs_research_cost_discipline.md
New memory entry — Waggle primary framing	C:/Users/MarkoMarkovic/.claude/projects/D--Projects-waggle-os/memory/feedback_waggle_primary_framing.md

---

End of §0 preflight evidence. §0 PASS aggregate Round 3. CC implementing §1-§5.