JVM startup dominated a scan: a call per region per family put a ten-line
file at 275s over three regions, and would have put a thousand regions at
roughly fifty hours. The queries themselves are milliseconds once the CPG
is loaded, so the cost was almost entirely process starts.
scan_repository() is now collect -> batch -> arbitrate. The three .sc
scripts accept a `requests` JSON map and answer all of them in one run,
keeping the single-request form so the committed measurements stay
reproducible byte-for-byte. Arbiters are untouched: each is handed a
CpgResult whose `run` returns its own prefetched rows.
The batcher builds parameters by calling request_params() extracted from
taint.py, dominance.py and config_value.py rather than reconstructing
them. A second copy that drifts from the arbiter's is the exact shape of
the five family-assumption bugs the predecessor spec spent a session
finding; there is now one definition per family and the batcher borrows
it.
Regions are also deduplicated by (path, function), collapsing the
nameless entry-point rows that were producing `model:injection:?:10`.
Measured on the same ten-line file: 275s -> 106s, three duplicate
findings -> one `model:injection:ping:10`, rung unchanged at
model_entailed. Gates byte-identical.
Server mode is recorded as task 2.3, deliberately sequenced after the
repository measurement: whether the remaining ~100s floor is worth a
process model, a weakened subprocess seam and a Scala-evaluating HTTP
endpoint depends on a build-time-to-query-time ratio only 2.2 produces.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
Pair scoring could rely on a labelled function; a contributor cannot supply one
-- which code is risky is the question they are asking. Regions now come from
entry points, with a file-level fallback that says it is one, and each carries
only the families its shape and language admit. Ranking uses what
EntryPointRecord already decided (access_level, trust_boundary) rather than a
second opinion computed from the same evidence.
A family is offered only where its arbiter could answer: access_control needs a
handler, so a library file with no entry point is not asked about obligations it
has no siblings to be inconsistent with.
The driver makes the two costs that were free at pair scale explicit. ONE CPG
per repository, reused across regions -- a build is 5-30s on a forty-line
excerpt and per-region builds would make this unusable. And a budget that is a
TOTAL for the run rather than the enumerator's per-region cap of eight, spent
highest-rank-first, with whatever it does not reach counted into
regions_unjudged. A tool that silently analyses a tenth of a repository and
reports a clean result is worse than one that says what it skipped.
Two flaws the tests caught, both mine and both about ownership: the budget
counted calls by reading a client's own usage log, so it silently never tripped
for a client that keeps none -- the driver now counts its own spend through a
wrapper; and the driver trusted its caller to have sorted, when the order the
budget is spent in belongs to whoever holds the budget.
The third was worse and only surfaced because a test failed for the right
reason: the driver passed candidates=() and never enumerated, so a repository
scan would have reported only what the arbiters establish unaided and never
populated the suspicion band -- which supplied 15 of 26 findings in the pair
measurement. It enumerates now.
Sibling audit (Req 8.5) done before writing: family routing lives in exactly one
production place, pipeline._arbitrate, dispatching on spec type. regions_for
returns family names and the driver resolves specs, so that stays true.
750 passing, mypy clean over 96 files, gates byte-identical, zero orphans.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01T7XD7x5KonMdmGRkp63EQG
