feat(bench): RFC 0031 — frozen gates asserted; scenarios .2/.4/.7/.11 green

[jensholdgaard]

What

The §7 freeze's companion slice: the harness asserts the frozen gates instead of reporting them, and §5 scenarios RFC0031.2, .4, .7, .11 turn green.

• Dispatch-run assertions (collected after the full report prints — a failed gate never destroys the evidence): L1 and L3 storage-channel must-win at the frozen margin 10; L2 processed-channel must-win at 10 per the deferred-condition interim rule (storage stays informational); the RFC0031.7 latency floor at the frozen factor 3 on window pairs when both p50s measured (unmeasured latency logs loudly, never fails — the channel is corroborating). The comparative dispatch is now a regression gate: an L1/L3/L6 regression fails the run.
• Report relabeling: window-pair bytes lines read diagnostic (published, not gated) per the reclassification; L1/L3 storage lines read PRIMARY — §7 FROZEN.
• Greened scenarios, honestly testable without a container: .2/.4 pin the frozen margins and prove boundary semantics, with §9.13's recorded measurements cited as documented historical evidence (L3's pre-bloom 1.41× correctly fails the frozen gate — the test knows the difference between then and now); .7 ties the frozen factor to run docs(claude.md): add §6.2 "Tests are specifications" bullet #18's measured p50s; .11 is a docs-presence test on benchmarks.md §9.13 asserting the loss figures stay published — deleting a loss row fails CI.
• Stayed red with named conditions: .3 (M_L2 storage — after RFC 0033), .5 (L4 unmeasured), .6, .8 (F_L7 unmeasured), .9, .10. RFC status line untouched (ladder accounting is the maintainer's step).

Validation plan (measure-before-merge)

VALIDATED: run #19 (29227795504) exit 0 — the first asserting run passed live. L1 77.2× and L3 21.8× asserted against the frozen storage margins; both window latency floors held (0.41 / 3.53 vs the 1/3 bound); L2 processed gate cleared, storage informational at 1.07×. The comparative dispatch is now an enforcing regression gate.

Checks run

cargo fmt --all --check, cargo clippy --all-targets --all-features -- -D warnings (workspace-wide), cargo nextest run -p ourios-bench (144 passed incl. the four greened scenarios) — re-verified after rebasing onto the merged freeze.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01WQY9wfrfRggqSpMLH8Xj3Y

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@jensholdgaard, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 58 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 6ec0dd1b-1147-4b26-9157-f75ce43531f2

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between ceb8817 and 524a393.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• crates/ourios-bench/src/lgates.rs
• crates/ourios-bench/tests/rfc0031_comparative.rs

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch rfc0031-frozen-gates

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR updates the RFC 0031 comparative benchmark harness so the §7 “partial freeze” is enforced as asserted gates (after printing the report), and flips scenarios RFC0031.2/.4/.7/.11 from ignored red stubs to locally-provable green tests that validate the frozen gate math and the published §9.13 record.

Changes:

• Turns RFC0031.2/.4/.7 into deterministic unit-style tests that assert frozen margin/floor boundary semantics and validate against recorded §9.13 measurements.
• Adds a PairClass taxonomy to the indicative comparative run and introduces frozen_gate_failures() asserted after report output (L1/L3 storage must-win, L2 processed must-win, L6 latency floor when measurable).
• Updates ComparativeMargins documentation to reflect the 2026-07-13 partial freeze and keeps defaults pinned via tests.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
crates/ourios-bench/tests/rfc0031_comparative.rs	Greens selected RFC0031 scenarios and adds post-report frozen-gate assertions via a new pair taxonomy.
crates/ourios-bench/src/lgates.rs	Updates §7 calibration docs to reflect partially frozen values and keeps defaults pinned in tests.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 2 out of 2 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.