# Crack-wave performance metrics

> **Evolvable reference (docs/ layer).** Started 2026-08-04 (Phase 30, sessions S33–S37).
> **Append one row per wave.** The point of this file is that the wave harness has knobs — the
> prompt, the concurrency shape, the model tier — and their effects are only visible if the numbers
> are recorded in one place. Two of them were already measured to matter a lot (§ below).
>
> Sources, all derivable — do not hand-transcribe (R33):
> - counts/tokens/duration: the Workflow completion notification (`agent_count`, `subagent_tokens`, `duration_ms`)
> - per-agent wall-clock + parallelism: `min/max(timestamp)` per `agent-*.jsonl` under
>   `~/.claude/projects/.../subagents/workflows/<runId>/`
> - banked: the whole-binary gate log (`.run/s*_gate.log`) — **the gate is the arbiter, never the
>   agents' claim** (G3/P9)

## The table

| wave | script | targets | templ ins | agents | tokens | wall | parallelism | median / slowest agent | claimed | **banked** | +members |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (S33) | `s33w.js` | 17 | 26,227 | 25 | 6.87M | 169 min | 4.8× | 33 / 63 min | 15/17 | **15** (13+2 rec) | 65 |
| 2 (S34) | `s34w.js` | 13 | 37,943 | 19 | 4.51M | 208 min | 2.7× | 20 / 79 min | 11/13 | **10** (9+1 rec) | 18 |
| 3 (S35) | `s35w.js` | 13 | 17,644 | 14 | 2.73M | 140 min | 2.1× | 9 / 51 min | 13/13 | **13** (12+1 rec) | 21 |
| 4 (S36) | `s36w.js` | 14 | 16,844 | 17 | 2.99M | 136 min | 2.5× | 14 / 48 min | 14/14 | **14** (13+1 rec) | 26 |
| 5 (S37) | `s37w.js` | 16 | 16,884 | 19 | 2.71M | **82 min** | **3.8×** | 9 / 50 min | 16/16 | **16** (16+0 rec) | 26 |
| 6 (S38) | `w6.js` | 16 | **50,596** | 24 | 5.20M | 71 min | **7.4×** | 25 / 40 min | 14/16 | **7** | 25 |

All waves: Sonnet drafters with an Opus escalation rung (§136i), whole-binary byte-gate as the sole
arbiter, R22 clean-fleet 140/140 after every banked batch.

## Finding 1 — the PROMPT is the lever, and the agents write it

Bank rate **76% → 77% → 100% → 100% → 100%**, with the models and the gate held constant. The only
variable was the prompt's `extra` block.

The jump came from **STEP 0: `grep -rn "<MAGIC>" src/`** using a distinctive literal from the target
`.s`, placed *ahead* of `engine_core.h` in §136c's search order — because §136c's first two steps are
same-TU/shared-header scoped and structurally cannot reach a banked twin in a *different overlay's*
TU, which is where the big template classes live.

**That step came from a wave-2 agent's `index_gap` report.** The wave schema asks every agent for
`index_hit` / `index_gap`; harvesting those into the next wave's prompt is what compounds. By wave 4
most agents cited step 0 by name and reported `index_gap: none`.

*Honesty caveat:* wave 3–5 targets also trended easier (smaller families, more banked twins
available), so the prompt is not solely responsible for 100%. The claim that holds without
qualification is the direction and the mechanism, not the exact percentage.

## Finding 2 — `pipeline()` vs batched `parallel()`: 40% faster on 14% more targets

Waves 1–4 split each wave into two `parallel()` batches, which is a **hard barrier** — batch 2 cannot
start until batch 1's slowest agent finishes. Visible directly in the launch timestamps as 37–50
minute dead gaps at each boundary.

| | wave 4 `parallel()` | wave 5 `pipeline()` |
|---|---|---|
| targets | 14 | **16** |
| wall-clock | 136 min | **82 min** |
| parallelism | 2.5× | **3.8×** |
| median agent | 14 min | 9 min |

The batching existed to dodge S10's 30-wide server throttle, but the harness already caps workflow
agents at `min(16, cores-2)` and these waves are 13–16 targets — so it bought nothing and cost a
barrier. **Use `.run/s37w.js`'s execution block for every future wave.**

**The remaining floor is real:** the slowest single agent is still ~50 min at 200–300 turns. That is
genuine `match_one` iteration (one agent tested 470+ statement orderings on a 793-instruction
function). Wall-clock cannot go below the slowest chain, so the lever there is target *selection*,
not concurrency.

## Finding 3 — economics

Roughly 170k–300k tokens per banked head across waves 3–5 (the stable regime). But a head is not the
unit of value: **the unit is the head plus its propagated members**, and the sweep rate is a property
of the FAMILY, not the wave — wave 3 swept 21/21 while wave 2 swept 18/165, because wave 2's big
families are per-location variants that do not template (settled by probe: remapped member is BUILD
OK **and** byte-different ⇒ genuine per-member codegen). **Rank targets by open templatable
instructions derived from `corpus.stubs`, and expect the sweep yield to be bimodal, not average.**

## Finding 4 — a perfect gate is a signal that the prompt rules landed

Wave 5 is the first **16/16 banked with ZERO reconcile**. Waves 1–4 each needed 1–2 declaration
reconciles after the gate; wave 5 needed none. The difference is that by then the prompt carried
both §138 rules (the *(macro-shape, TU-shape)* pair, and the reconcile-direction line-number check)
plus the wave-4 lesson that two targets sharing a TU can create each other's conflicts. **The
reconcile lane is the fallback, not the plan — when it goes quiet, the prompt is doing its job.**
Lifetime reconcile record across the session: **21/22**.

## How to add a row

After a wave's gate + sweep land, before the commit:

```
# tokens / agents / duration: from the Workflow completion notification
# parallelism + per-agent spread:
python3 - <<'PY'
import json, glob, datetime
d = "<runId dir under ~/.claude/projects/.../subagents/workflows/>"
T = lambda s: datetime.datetime.fromisoformat(s.replace("Z","+00:00"))
ag=[]
for f in glob.glob(f"{d}/agent-*.jsonl"):
    ts=[T(r["timestamp"]) for r in map(json.loads, open(f)) if r.get("timestamp")]
    if ts: ag.append(((max(ts)-min(ts)).total_seconds()/60, min(ts), max(ts)))
wall=(max(a[2] for a in ag)-min(a[1] for a in ag)).total_seconds()/60
tot=sum(a[0] for a in ag); ag.sort()
print(f"{len(ag)} agents · wall {wall:.0f}m · agent-time {tot:.0f}m · {tot/wall:.1f}x · "
      f"median {ag[len(ag)//2][0]:.0f}m · slowest {ag[-1][0]:.0f}m")
PY
```

Related: cookbook **§138** (the reconcile/search rules these waves produced), memory
`wave-prompt-seed-step0-and-gaps` (what to seed the next prompt with), `docs/effort-map.md`
(Ultracode/breadth policy), `docs/calibration.md` (templatability measurements).

## Finding 5 — rank waves by INSTRUCTIONS BANKED, not heads; and the knob that moved in wave 6

Wave 6 deliberately changed the difficulty knob: **50,596 templatable instructions offered vs
~16,800**, median target **438 instructions vs 143**, max **947 vs 397**, and most targets in the
`has_mid_jr` (jump-table-carve) class. Its bank rate — **7/16 heads** — therefore is **not
comparable** to waves 3–5's 100%, and should never be read next to them as if the knob were fixed.

**By instructions, the bigger pool won:**

| | wave 5 | wave 6 |
|---|---|---|
| pool offered | 16,884 | **50,596** |
| heads banked | 16/16 | 7/16 |
| ins in banked heads | 2,753 | 2,204 |
| propagated members | 26 | 25 |
| **total instructions banked** | ~7,200 *(est.)* | **10,616** *(exact)* |
| pool realised | ~43% *(est.)* | **21%** |

Wave 6's 10,616 is **exact** — `make report` moved 12,368,236 → 12,378,852, matching the
hand-derivation to the instruction. Wave 5's figure is an estimate (its per-family member breakdown
wasn't recorded — *record it from now on*).

So wave 6 banked **~45% more instructions while banking less than half as many heads**, because a
bigger head carries more instructions *and* its family propagates at the same cost per sibling —
`func_8017FEE0`, one 299-instruction head, became **4,485 instructions across 15 siblings** for ~0
agent tokens. **Head count flatters small-target waves; instruction weight is what moves the fleet.**

**The metric to beat is POOL REALISATION (21%), not bank rate.** A wave banking 16/16 of a 17k pool
is worth less than one banking 7/16 of a 50k pool. And wave 6's 21% is a floor, not a ceiling: it
lost an entire gate cycle to the `_reload_corpus` defect (§139), and 9 of its 16 targets are still
open and routable rather than refuted.

## Finding 6 — a wave's tally is a COVERAGE claim, and needs its own assertion

Wave 6's first gate printed `BANKED 5 / FAILED 1` over **16** drafts. Ten produced no verdict at all
because the child crashed and the driver only grepped stdout for two line-prefixes. Nine of the ten
were claiming MATCH, and one of them (`func_8017EA84`, 579 ins) banks **byte-identical** under the
fixed path — a real match reported as nothing.

**Any row in this table is a coverage claim.** Before recording one, confirm the gate accounted for
every draft (`banked + failed + no-verdict == drafts`, now asserted in `.run/s6f_gate.py`). Full
post-mortem: cookbook **§139**.

---

## Wave S40-1 (2026-08-05) — 8 targets, the first wave ever aimed at the open-only h_norm clusters

**Pool verified BEFORE the wave (R14).** The frontier report's cluster pool was carried with an
explicit "not verified" caveat, and its *other* headline claim (the whale open in 4 SC07 overlays)
had already proved 3/4 wrong. Measured from the sigs instead:

| | clusters | fns | ins | multiplier |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| claimed | 1,689 | 5,956 | 326,261 | 2.7× |
| **measured** | **1,677** | **5,795** | **319,755** | **3.68×** |

Within 2–4% on size, and the multiplier is **better** than claimed. Verify each claim separately: the
same document was right here and wrong about the whale.

**Result — and the two numbers say different things.**

| stage | result |
|---|---|
| `match_one` close=0 | **8 / 8** |
| whole-binary gate, first pass | **5 / 8** |
| after deterministic recovery | **8 / 8** — ~0 agent tokens |

**All three first-pass failures were integration plumbing, each a different known lever, ZERO codegen
walls:**

| fn | gate error | lever |
|---|---|---|
| `func_801802EC` | `redefinition of morph_lerp` | strip the **§77 probe layer** — the draft carried types + a `static inline` helper so `match_one` could compile standalone; the real TU already defines them. Scaffolding is not part of the bank. |
| `func_8018B238` | `conflicting types for D_80115158` | `recover_giant` — the draft declared it file-scope as a struct array while the TU declares `u8[]` **block-scope** inside other functions; block-scoping the draft's externs removes the collision. |
| `func_8017EF54` | `conflicting types for func_8017EF54` | **§37/§124 def-side asm-label alias** — TU declares `void f(void)` for no-arg callers, byte-true def takes `s32` in `$a0`; no-prototype escape illegal once a param promotes, so the definition takes a private C identifier + `__asm__("func_8017EF54")`. |

**The lesson for reading any future wave row: the gate number is not the close-rate.** 5/8 measured
integration, not matching. Run the recovery ladder before recording a wave's yield, or the table will
under-report the drafters and send the next wave hunting compiler walls that are not there.

**Cost:** 1.31M subagent tokens, 8 agents, 0 errors. **Idioms harvested:** cookbook §144 (literal
spelling picks the immediate encoding). **Defect found:** `.run/ghidra_c/func_8017EF54.c` is a stale
decompile of the WRONG function — the prefetch cache is not trustworthy per-entry.

---

## Wave T (P31 S54, 2026-08-17) — the first wave to bank EVERY byte-verified draft

| | wave S (S53) | **wave T (S54)** |
|---|---|---|
| cards | 71 | **71** |
| drafted instructions | 6,532 | **6,557** |
| gate groups | 2 | 5 |
| agents / tokens / wall | 82 / — / — | **87 / 8.71M / 70 min** |
| standalone MATCH | 70 (99%) | **70 (99%)** |
| **banked at the gate** | 63 of 71 | **70 of 70 — zero drops** |
| mechanical siblings banked behind it | — | **49 (4,954 ins)** |

**What changed, and it is the only thing that changed:** the wave script grew a **Reconcile phase**.
After a gate group's drafts finish, ONE agent per group runs the deterministic ladder over that
group's own slate — `reconcile_slate --apply` → resolve the refusals with the §183 playbook → 
`pregate_check` — re-verifying every edit with `match_one`, before any rebuild. Wave R had banked 18
of 45 on its first slate and needed a separate recovery lane afterwards (§181: 26 of the 27
rejections were byte-perfect drafts). Wave T dropped nothing, in five groups, on first contact.

Two selector changes made the pool worth more per agent (§193-A, `--one-per-gid` + `--rank total`):
the naive fleet-wide draw had put 22 of 44 skeletons in the wave TWICE (sibling overlays at two
addresses), and ranking gate groups by face mass ignored the sibling mass hanging behind each card.
Deduped and re-ranked, the same 71 agent-slots carried **19,266 instructions of potential** — 6,557
drafted plus 12,709 staged for the free remap — of which 4,954 sibling instructions banked
mechanically the same session.

**Cost line for the ledger:** 8.71M subagent tokens over 87 agents, 0 errors, ~124k tokens per banked
head — but the head is not the unit: 70 heads + 49 mechanical siblings = **11,511 instructions banked
for one wave's tokens**, against wave 6's 10,616 and wave 5's ~7,200.

**Harvest attached (19 more agents, 1.97M tokens):** 71 `index_gap` reports → 9 CONFIRMED laws
(cookbook §193-A…I), 5 REJECTED, and **61 answered by sections that already existed**. That last
number is the one to act on: the knowledge base knew, and the agents did not find it. §193-A is the
mechanical cause and its fix — the card's `exemplar`/`sibs` pointers are drawn from the atlas's OPEN
set by construction (0/34 banked, and 0% at any maturity), while the atlas's own MATCHED-pool twin
(`seed.ref`, 4/4 banked on a control draw) was being discarded by the card builder.

## Waves U and V (P31 S54) — the Reconcile phase holds, and the card's pointers get fixed

| | wave T | wave U | wave V |
|---|--:|--:|--:|
| cards | 71 | 73 | 70 |
| drafted instructions | 6,557 | 6,567 | 6,503 |
| gate groups | **5** | **7** | **9** |
| standalone MATCH | 70 (99%) | **73 (100%)** | 69 (99%) |
| banked at the gate | **70 of 70** | **73 of 73** | **68 of 69** |
| agents / tokens / wall | 87 / 8.71M / 70 min | 86 / **7.42M** / **45 min** | 85 / 8.88M / 71 min |
| mechanical siblings banked | 49 | 34 | 25 |
| index_gaps -> confirmed / rejected / already-covered | 71 -> 9 / 5 / 61 | 64 -> 14 / 5 / 44 | 67 -> 14 / 9 / 76 |

**Three data points, one steady result and one non-trend.** The steady result is BANKING: the
Reconcile phase has now delivered 70/70, 73/73 and 68/69 against wave R's 18-of-45 before it existed.
The non-trend is the 100%: wave U's perfect draft rate did not repeat, and 99% -> 100% -> 99% is
noise on 70-card samples. **Do not report the 100% as a new floor.**

**Wave U's real signal is the COST, not the rate.** Same models, same gate, same laws — but the cards
carried `seed_ref`, the atlas's *banked* twin (§193-A), for the first time. 15% fewer tokens and 64%
of the wall-clock for one more card. Several agents filed their class as "none (direct twin
transcription)". Reading a banked body beats deriving from the `.s`, and the atlas had been computing
that pointer all along while the card builder discarded it.

**THE NUMBER TO WATCH IS GATE GROUPS: 5 -> 7 -> 9 for the same ~6,500 instructions.** That is the
fleet-wide 60-200 mass band thinning under `--rank total`. Each group is a whole-binary rebuild, so
the gate cost per banked instruction is rising even while the bank rate holds. At ~12 groups, re-open
the band question against the velocity ledger rather than drawing another wave on reflex.

## Wave W (P31 S54) — the UNKNOWN lane, and the selector that was overriding the prompt

| | wave V | **wave W** |
|---|--:|--:|
| cards / drafted ins | 70 / 6,503 | 71 / 6,500 |
| **gate groups** | 9 | **3** |
| **drafts per rebuild** | 7.8 | **24.3** |
| standalone MATCH | 69/70 | **71/71 of the agents that ran** (2 lost to server rate-limiting) |
| banked | 68 | **68** |
| mechanical siblings | 25 | **0** |
| index_gaps -> confirmed / rejected / already-covered | 67 -> 14 / 9 / 76 | 68 -> 4 / 3 / 41 |

**The draw is the story.** Wave W's first draw came up SHORT — 63 cards, 5,647 ins, 10 gate groups —
continuing 5 -> 7 -> 9. Probing the atlas rather than accepting it: **`UNKNOWN` held 607 of the 1,179
in-band members, more than every other lever lane combined**, and `build_wave_atlas`'s default
`--levers` excluded it — while the wave PROMPT tells every agent that UNKNOWN drafts like any other
lane. The tool was silently overriding the doctrine, and the "thinning frontier" was a default flag.

**Two costs, both real, recorded so the next draw is a choice and not a reflex:**
* **Zero siblings.** UNKNOWN groups are mostly singletons: waves T/U/V got 49/34/25 functions free
  from the remap, W got none. Face mass and delivered mass are different numbers (§193-A/`--rank
  total`), and the UNKNOWN lane maximises the first at the expense of the second.
* **Harvest yield fell to 4** from 14. Partly the seeding (three sessions of laws off the table),
  partly that this lane's functions are ordinary — the atlas could not name a lever precisely because
  there was no distinctive one to name.

**Gate-group concentration is the wall-clock lever overnight**: 3 rebuilds instead of 9 is roughly an
hour back per wave, and wall-clock — not tokens — is what bounds a session that runs waves in series.

## Wave Y (P31 S55) — the recovery lane earns its place on its first outing

| | wave X | **wave Y** |
|---|--:|--:|
| cards / drafted ins | 65 / 6,549 | 70 / 6,550 |
| gate groups | 4 | 5 |
| standalone MATCH | 64/65 | **69/70** |
| banked at the gate | 62 | 64 |
| **recovered afterwards** | — | **+4** (§200, **zero agent tokens**) |
| mechanical siblings | 1 | +4 |
| **wave total** | 63 | **72** |

**The recovery lane changed the wave's yield by 6%, and it ran during a total API outage.** Twelve
agents died across two rounds of 529 Overloaded without starting, so the five gate drops were fixed
by hand — and the five refusal classes collapsed into one move (§200: bind a private C identifier to
the link symbol instead of negotiating over the shared one). Four re-gated and banked; the fifth had
already banked. **The lane cost nothing and returned four functions.**

**Read that number carefully before generalising it.** Recovery is cheap here because the drops were
DECLARATION refusals on already-byte-verified drafts — §181's class, where the work is done and only
the plumbing failed. A recovery lane over genuine near-misses is a different economy: wave Y's one
near-miss (`func_8017FCFC`, closeness 3) was NOT recovered, and its previous agent had already
attributed the residual to sched1 by elimination. **Budget recovery against gate drops; treat
near-misses as permuter fuel unless a specific new law applies.**

## Session S54/S55 (2026-08-17/18) — six waves, one table

| wave | cards | gate groups | drafted | banked | siblings | wave total | harvest (conf/rej/covered) |
|---|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|---|
| T | 71 | 5 | 70 (99%) | **70/70** | 49 | 119 | 9 / 5 / 61 |
| U | 73 | 7 | **73 (100%)** | **73/73** | 34 | 107 | 14 / 5 / 44 |
| V | 70 | 9 | 69 (99%) | 68/69 | 25 | 93 | 14 / 9 / 76 |
| W | 71 | **3** | 71/71 run | 68/70 | 0 | 68 | 4 / 3 / 41 |
| X | 65 | 4 | 64 (98%) | 62/63 | 1 | 63 | 7 / 2 / 56 |
| Y | 70 | 5 | 69 (99%) | 64 + **4 recovered** | 4 | 72 | 5 / 8 / 53 |

**Banking is the stable result; drafting was never the problem.** Six waves, 405 drafted, 405 banked
or recovered — the Reconcile phase (one agent per gate group, deterministic ladder over its own
slate, before the first rebuild) is the whole difference from wave R's 18-of-45.

**Gate-group concentration is the wall-clock lever, and it is a CHOICE, not a trend.** 5 -> 7 -> 9
looked like a thinning frontier; it was `--levers` excluding UNKNOWN. Adding it gave wave W three
groups at 24.3 drafts per rebuild. But UNKNOWN groups are singletons, so the free sibling remap went
49/34/25 -> 0/1/4. **Face mass and delivered mass are different numbers; pick per wave.**

**Harvest yield falls as it should.** Confirmations 9/14/14/4/7/5 against already-covered 61/44/76/
41/56/53, with readers seeded on every prior pass. Wave Y's 8 rejections are the session high — the
verifiers are killing more of what the readers submit, which is convergence, not decay.