ADR-0070 Architecture decision record

A Machine lends its parts to a Chart

The ask behind ADR-0069 had a second half: an Agent should be able to create a powerful workflow at run time and run it, without a commit to the Instance and without a human redeploying anything, and it must not be able to take the system over. The first half settled that only jr2 up publishes code, because a Machine is TypeScript the Orchestrator imports into a process that holds the ServiceAccount, the signing key and the Instance token, and every fence jr2 built keeps the Agent away from that process: it reaches its Machine through a container it cannot read (ADR-0013), holds Stand-ins and never keys (ADR-0059), and spends a credential only through an Effector (ADR-0068). One fromPromise written by an Agent and imported by the Orchestrator collapses all of them. So an Agent's workflow cannot be code. The grill of 2026-10-18 found that it does not need to be, and the prior art agrees: Step Functions keeps every Resource a constant and puts all authority in the role; Argo's answer to "anyone who can submit a Workflow gets any ServiceAccount" was a strict mode where a submitter may only reference a human-owned template; Temporal's own answer to "dynamic" is a trusted interpreter walking untrusted JSON; Stately's v6 serializer stores a machine as data with implementations by name and refuses inline code outright. In-process isolates (node:vm, isolated-vm, QuickJS in wasm) are argued against by their own maintainers, and the escapes shipped in systems that used them were in the bridge.

Decision

• A Chart is a Machine written as data alone. States, transitions, invokes, after delays, nested and parallel states, a final state's output: xstate's own JSON-serializable config, with every guard, action and delay named ({ type, params }) and every invoke.src a slot name. It carries no function, no import, no secret name, no url, no argv, no image and no Repo, and it names no Turn's placement: the Open body places every Agent Turn its Chart starts from its own input, as its wrapper placed it (the stub tier's explicit endpoint, or the ambient workspace()). The grammar is version 1 of a kit schema, chartSchema, not xstate's config whole: a state's own onDone, a parallel join and an emit action are not in it, a nested final state's output is refused because nothing reads it, and a Chart is at most 200 states, 8 deep. A spike against xstate 5.32.2 bound such a chart as a child of a hand-written wrapper, with lent actors, named guards and actions reading params, sendParent, onDone output and a snapshot round-trip.

• An Open body is the slot a Chart binds, and a Chart wrapper is the Machine that declares it. A Machine declares a body slot and leaves it Open for a run to bind, the one Open part that a run, not a composer, binds (ADR-0054), as a per-run Repo Slot is bound from the door (ADR-0051). The declaration states three things: what it lends, by slot name (Agents, Effects, child Machines, guards, actions, delays); what a Chart may define (the models and the Workspace access its own Agents may have); and the ceilings (below). Nothing a Chart names resolves anywhere but there. "Wrapper" unqualified keeps ADR-0049's sense, any Machine with a body slot, workspace() and pool() included; a Chart wrapper is the one whose body a run binds.

• A Chart mints routing, events and Agents; it borrows reach. It mints its states and transitions; its Vocabulary, each event { name, input: <JSON Schema>, audience? }, built into zod at admission (zod 4 reads JSON Schema natively, and the wire to the Harness was JSON Schema already), so a lent Agent's Menu derives from the Chart's events as from any nested Machine's. The payload schema is a named subset: type, properties, required, items, enum, const, additionalProperties, the numeric and length bounds, title and description; pattern, $ref, the combinators and the conditionals are refused by name, because the Orchestrator checks every pick against the schema in its own process, and a payload field named type is refused, because the event name is a constant the Orchestrator writes after the payload. Its Gates it BORROWS: the kit's Gate is reach to the outside (a human's or a webhook's answer into the run), so the Open body lends it whole, lends.gate: true, and a body that does not has no gate in its grammar and refuses one at the door; a lent Gate's ids sit below the body's own actor path, so a Chart cannot take the name of its wrapper's Gate. (Measured: with gate offered beside one lent Agent, three of five missed second Charts reached for it as a worker.) And it mints its own Agents, because an Agent is five plain fields (ADR-0049) and the Harness runs whatever definition rides the Turn. A minted Agent's model must be one the Open body allows and the Assembly placed a key for; workspace: "none" needs the Instance Harness the Assembly converged. Both are door refusals, never a 401 mid-run. It borrows, by slot name only, every Effect (the url, argv and secret were bound once by the author and the Chart fills only its input slots), every Repo and image, every secret, every child Machine, and every guard, action or delay beyond the generic set. Lending is attenuated by construction; an author who lends command(["sh", "-c", arg("script")]) has lent a shell, and that is theirs to choose. A lent name may not be dotted, gate, fail, a generic action's name or an integer, because those are the kit's; the Gate itself is lent as gate: true, and the Part that fails the run as fail: true (ADR-0073), because the Machine decides which ends a Chart can choose. The guard jr2.failure, which tells a Failure from a defect on an onError, is in every Chart, as jr2.sentBy is: it is a predicate and gives no capability.

• Constants for authority, references for data. invoke.src, guard and action types, delay names and event names are constants, checked against the lent set and the Chart's own declarations at admission. Data flows through references: a placeholder {{context.ticket.title}}, or { "$ref": "event.summary" }, in an invoke's input, an action's params, a Gate's meta and the root output. A reference is a path lookup that jr2's own code performs at invoke time: a list of property names walked on the run's context, event or input, which are plain data by ADR-0007. There is no evaluation, no operator, no call; {{context.round + 1}} fails the grammar. The roots are context, event and input, and nothing else; event.output and event.error are read whole, and event.error is a line jr2 writes that names the invoke, never the error's own message, because a child's error is a defect whose text never reaches a model (ADR-0067). A placeholder is read from the Chart's own strings and never from data: a ticket body that contains {{context.notes}} lands in a prompt as those characters; a lone placeholder yields the value itself, and one inside a string writes an object as JSON. Four generic actions exist, set { path, from }, append, increment and clear, with path relative to the context; everything else a Chart does is states, named guards and lent actions. The kit's own task builds its coder prompt with a conditional on the round; in a Chart that is two states and a guard. A reference the door admitted but the run's data lacks (a read before the state that writes it) settles the body refused with the reference named, never as an error. A terminating, side-effect-free expression (CEL-class) is the named later addition, as a new reference kind: adding one breaks no Chart, removing one would.

• A Chart always runs under a Chart wrapper, and the Chart is the body actor's input. Four doors, nothing else:

  Who	One-shot	Named
  HTTP (a human, a tool, an MCP)	POST /workflows/<wrapper>/runs with chart in the input	PUT /workflows/<wrapper>/charts/<name> once, then POST /workflows/<wrapper>/charts/<name>/runs
  A Machine (an Agent)	a pick carries the Chart; a state invokes the Open body with it	the Open body's input carries { chart: { name } }, the wrapper's own Chart by its short name, resolved at invoke

  One-shot, the Chart wrapper is the Workflow whose run it is. Named, the Chart is a child of its wrapper: its Workflow name is <wrapper>/<name>, its routes live under the wrapper's, and jr2 run task/review-loop starts it as the ordinary run-start does. A Chart never runs on its own: the Open body it binds is where its lent parts and ceilings come from. Either way the Chart arrives as the body actor's input, so the grammar reaches a planner as the JSON Schema of its pick for free (chartSchema is exported by @jr2/orchestrator, and chartSchemaFor(declaration) is the same grammar narrowed to one Open body, for a planner's pick), narrowed per wrapper: GET /workflows/<wrapper>/chart-schema is the grammar with the wrapper's lent slot names, guard, action and delay names, and allowed models as enums, derived from the two facts jr2 already reads. A human writing workflows/<wrapper>/<name>.chart.json points an editor at it and gets validation and completion; a planner whose pick is { chart } gets it as its tool parameters, so the model is constrained at generation time, which is as close to a type as a model can get. A Chart file is admitted by jr2 up's host-side walk with the same door, so its errors surface at the same command as tsc's, one step later. That is what compile-time type safety becomes for a Chart: the wrapper stays TypeScript and typechecked, and the Chart's references into it are checked at a door that sees the live lent set, which a compiler would not. And a name is resolved to text at invoke time and admitted exactly as text would be, and a name is a binding: a named Chart was created against one Chart wrapper and runs under that wrapper only, which its name and its path both say. So the by-name path takes the short name alone, review-loop, and resolves it among the Charts of the wrapper that is the run's root Workflow, seen through a transparent wrapper; a Chart wrapper that another Machine invokes as a child resolves no name, because the run is not that wrapper's, and there is no way to write another wrapper's. Portability belongs to the text alone: to run one Chart under another wrapper, pass the text one-shot or publish it under that wrapper too. The body actor constructs the live Machine from the text at start and again at restore, which is ADR-0007's own rule: the text and its hash persist in the body's own snapshot, so the run holds what it ran even if the name is later deleted or republished, and the run's shape stamp (ADR-0030) stays its wrapper's, because the Chart is the run's data and not its Machine's shape. At restore the body admits its text again against the parts lent now and compiles it again; a hash that does not match the text, or a text the door now refuses, is drift naming the body slot and the reason. A one-shot Chart lives nowhere but its run, and ADR-0069's pin covers it by construction. Resolving by name is invoke-by-name, which ADR-0049 rejected for Machines; a name here resolves to data the Open body still binds, so nothing that decision protects is lost.

• A Chart's author is an Agent, and jr2 briefs it on the Turn that may write one. A Chart is written by a model at run time: a planner whose pick carries one. A human who keeps a Chart file reads the same grammar through an editor, and is the second audience, not the first. The narrowed grammar constrains the Chart's names, but it does not teach what a Chart IS, and a measured planner guessed xstate: onDone on an Agent, no events, the lent Agent redefined under agents, input.change for a prompt, event.result.value for a pick's field. Its first Chart drew a ten-line report and admitted on the third or fourth. So jr2 says how a Chart runs BEFORE the first Chart, as the Chart briefing (CHART_BRIEFING, chartBriefing(narrow)): one text, jr2's, naming no task and no pick, that reaches every author by one channel each. It is the grammar's root description, so GET /workflows/<wrapper>/chart-schema and a pick's tool parameters carry it, and a future MCP built on the schema carries it for free. A narrowed grammar's briefing names the lent Agents, and a body that allows no model has NO agents in its grammar and a briefing that says so: a planner reads a field it cannot fill as one to fill (measured: eight of ten first Charts minted under a never model, and read "must not have additional properties" for it), and a Chart that brings agents anyway reads at the door why there is none. And the Agent's surface MARKS a pick whose parameter is a Chart with that grammar's briefing (SurfaceEvent.briefing, by schema identity), so the Harness says the text in the Turn part, right before "Allowed now", on every Turn where that pick is Allowed, and on a restatement that opens it (ADR-0062). Nowhere else: the standing Briefing stays Chart-agnostic, the tools block stays the same bytes on every Turn (ADR-0029), and a seat whose Menu holds no Chart pick reads not a word of it. The cost is the author's to scope: a seat whose Menu holds a Chart pick carries the grammar as cached tool parameters on every Turn, so an author who wants a planner that only sometimes writes a Chart gives the pick to a seat of its own. The grammar's fields keep terse sentences at the places a planner got wrong (agents, invoke.input, invoke.onDone, events, output), because a model reads a property's description as it emits the property. The door's report stays complete, one line per fault, as the second teacher. And a narrowed grammar shows ONE worked fragment, as JSON Schema examples on the state definition and on events: an Agent state invoking the body's first lent Agent, and the declared pick with a required field that ends its Turn, handled in on with a target and a set. It is the one shape every Agent state must have to run, so it steers no path: not the number of states, their order, the prompts, loops, guards or minted Agents. A whole Chart as an example was refused for that reason, since the instrument copies what it is shown (it wrote the briefing's set verbatim), and a Chart template in the grammar would make every Chart that Chart. A body that lends no Agent shows nothing: there is no real name. examples is advisory in JSON Schema and some providers strip it from tool parameters, so it is a lever for an instrument that passes the schema through, never a contract.

• A Chart under a name is a Workflow and a child of its wrapper, from one of two origins. Its name is <wrapper>/<name>, one rule for both, and <name> is lower-case letters, digits and hyphens, 63 at most. A Chart file in the Assembly sits at workflows/<wrapper>/<name>.chart.json and carries the Chart alone: discovered one level below the flat workflows/*.ts of ADR-0050, in a directory named after its wrapper and holding nothing else jr2 reads (a _ or . directory is a helper's, as ADR-0050 has it, and a .chart.json at the flat level is a warning, never a Chart). Another file in such a directory is a warning too, except in a docker context that a registered Machine names: a module ships its context beside it (ADR-0037, ADR-0049), so import.meta.resolve("./python") in workflows/pytest.ts is workflows/python/, a folder jr2 reads, and the warning would be false. A Chart file is published by jr2 up, which admits every Chart file on the host before any cluster work, reproducible from the Instance repo, admitted by the same static door at the publish. A runtime Chart is PUT /workflows/<wrapper>/charts/<name> and DELETE on the same path, the body the Chart alone, behind the Instance token, not the publish token, because a Chart is data and cannot reach the process, which is the whole point of this decision; it lives on the Orchestrator's volume at .jr2/charts/<wrapper>/<name>.chart.json beside the Assemblies, written durably, and survives restarts. A live run holds its Chart through the text in its own snapshot, so a DELETE while a run is live answers at once and the run goes on. It lists in jr2 runs and the Console with its origin shown: jr2 runs keeps its result, the live runs, and prints the listing beside it as activity, with --workflows to make the listing the result (ADR-0009); there is no verb for PUT or DELETE, an MCP or curl is the client. GET /workflows lists each wrapper with its Charts inside its entry, not beside it, and GET /workflows/<wrapper> carries each Open body's declaration. So a Workflow is one of three things: a Machine from the Assembly, a Chart file from the Assembly, or a runtime Chart, and the last two are children of the first. There is no collision rule between a Machine and a Chart: a Machine's name is a filename stem and holds no slash, a Chart's name always holds one, and a wrapper missing from a new Assembly makes its Charts unrunnable by construction, which the publish reports. Between the two origins there is one: a Chart file and a runtime Chart of one name are the file's, and the runtime Chart is unrunnable, kept, until the file leaves the Assembly; a PUT to a name a file holds is refused. Rejected: flat names with a collision refusal and the wrapper named in the PUT body, the shape this decision first took; the binding was then a rule to check in two places instead of a fact the name and the path state. jr2 tells a Chart wrapper from two facts it already reads, and the author marks nothing: the walk sees the Open body on the registered Machine (a kit constructor in actors, as agent() is, seen through a transparent wrapper's body), and the door schema (ADR-0033) shows which field is chartSchema. A wrapper whose door has no Chart field is a wrapper for in-Machine Charts only, run by jr2 run like any Workflow; one with a Chart field can also be run one-shot by HTTP and can have named Charts. GET /workflows lists both facts. A named Chart's fixed input supplies every Chart-typed field of the wrapper's door and nothing else, so a named Chart stays a Chart and not a preset of a Workflow's door, which would be a decision of its own; a Machine with two Open bodies has two Chart fields and a named Chart fixes both, and a Chart, named or a field, is admitted when one of the bodies admits it, each report line naming its body, because the door cannot tell which body a field feeds. A PUT or a Chart file under a wrapper with no Chart door is refused, as is one under a Workflow that is no wrapper at all. An Assembly publish re-admits every named Chart against the new Assembly, because a lent slot may have gone: a Chart file that fails refuses the publish, since the file is the Instance's own; a runtime Chart that fails is marked unrunnable and reported in the publish's answer, never deleted, because it is someone else's. An unrunnable Chart still lists, with its reason, and a start of it answers 409. An MCP that lets a user's own agent author and run Charts is a client of these routes plus GET /workflows/<wrapper> for the Open body's declaration and GET /runs/<id>/events; whether the kit ships one is a product question, not this one.

• Admission is static and mandatory, because xstate refuses nothing. The spike found that an un-lent invoke.src kills the WRAPPER actor with a TypeError that bypasses the body invoke's onError; an unknown action is silently ignored, even in the development build; an unknown delay name fires at once; an unguarded always cycle exhausted the heap. So the door checks, before createActor, in this order: the size cap, then the grammar, and if either fails nothing else is read; then every fault of the rules that follow, reported together, each line with its path in the Chart and what is lent or allowed. The names: every src, type and delay name against the lent set and the Chart's own agents, and a delay below the wall clock. The events: every on key against the Chart's events and the events against a handling state (ADR-0011's rules), each payload within the schema subset above. The minted Agents: every model against the allowed list and the placed keys, every Workspace access against the allowed set. The structure: no always cycle without a guard, through parallel regions and history too; no onDone on an Agent invoke, because a Turn never settles by itself, it ends on a pick in on; no Agent state that nothing can end; no parallel state at or below an Agent's. An Agent state of a Chart needs no agent.fault route. A state of a Machine needs one (ADR-0074). An agent.fault that no transition of the Chart takes goes, unchanged, to the Machine that invoked the Open body, and that Machine's agent.fault route takes it, as it takes the fault of an Agent of its own. So a Machine that invokes an Open body that can run an Agent needs the route too, on that state or above it. A route in the Chart stays legal, and it can read {{event.reason}}. The wrapper is the right place: a Chart under a body that lends no fail has no correct end for a fault, because a final state means done (ADR-0073) and a state that waits holds the run until the wall clock. So the briefing does not teach the route, and the grammar's fragment does not show it. And two checks that stand in for the types a Chart does not have. Dataflow: every reference a Chart makes, {{context.summary}} or { "$ref": "event.notes" }, must be supplied by something the door can see: the Chart's initial context, the Chart's input (the wrapper's door less its Chart fields and the placement, or, for a body a Machine invokes, what that invoke sends), the schema of the event the transition handles, or a set, append or increment on that path or above it, where a set from one reference supplies what that reference supplies and nothing deeper; a reference nothing supplies would resolve to an empty string in a prompt with no one the wiser, so it is refused. The fields a Chart declares are its types. Lent input shapes: an Effect carries an input schema and an Agent's Turn input is a fixed key set (prompt, cwd, continue, model, thinkingLevel, no placement), so the literal parts of a Chart's input objects are validated at the door and the resolved object again at invoke time, where a failure is that invoke's error and never a mid-Turn surprise. Last, the door compiles the Chart as the body would: jr2Setup's own refusals (less its agent.fault refusal), and the load warnings a hand-written Machine gets (an unentered mode), are refusal lines for a Chart, because a planner reads a report and nobody reads a warning. A refusal is the body's OUTPUT, { outcome: "refused", report }, routed by the wrapper's onDone with a guard on outcome, so a wrapper whose onDone returns to the planning state hands it to the planner as the output link in its Chain (ADR-0067): "Chart refused: src: "linter" is not a lent actor; lent: coder, reviewer, push", and the planner answers with a corrected Chart. It is not the body's error, because a child's error is a defect that never reaches the model (ADR-0067, which stands); at the HTTP door it is 422 with the same report. No new mechanism: an Agent reads its children's outputs through the Chain already.

• Counters are the Open body's. Its declaration states the Chart's ceilings: Turns, every Agent Turn below the body, a lent Machine's included; wall clock, at most xstate's timer bound of 2^31-1 ms; transitions, one microstep budget for the whole run, since xstate has no loop guard; fan-out width, the children live at once; and Chart size in bytes, at most 1 MiB. One bound is the kit's and not the declaration's: a context or an output above 4 MiB. A ceiling met settles the body { outcome: "ceiling", ceiling }, its children stopped, and a Turn one past the Turns ceiling never starts. A spend ceiling checked before each model call is the right next one; jr2 meters no spend today, so it is named and deferred.

• The Console renders the run's Machine. Every machine doc came from the definition, so a Chart's states would not render. A per-run doc route exists, GET /workflows/<name>/runs/<id>/machine, and the run view draws the bound Machine, keyed by the Charts the run binds now, so a planner's second Chart draws a second doc; a Chart the run cannot draw (a drifted run) is named in the doc. A Chart one cannot watch is a Chart one cannot trust.

• The trust statement. Code is published by the Instance; a run supplies only data. The fence is structural, so it holds whether the Agent is prompt-injected or the model is adversarial: data cannot reach the process, and a borrowed Effect reaches only the host its author fixed. What remains is cost and routing abuse, which the counters bound, and a Gate the Chart itself defines being approved on bad information, which is the author's Gate placement to decide.

Considered options

• Code, and trust the publisher: an Agent publishes a Machine through an Effect holding the Instance token, behind a human Gate. Rejected: the Gate is the only fence, on a process that holds the cluster, and a reviewer reading generated code under time is not a fence ADR-0059 would accept anywhere else.
• Isolation: a dynamic body's logic in an isolate or a worker with no secrets. Rejected: Node disclaims vm as a security mechanism, isolated-vm is in maintenance mode with a bridge its author calls trivially crossed, QuickJS in wasm is unaudited; the run host is in-process xstate, so this is a second Orchestrator and a coordination protocol; and it buys a generality the body does not need.
• Composition only, no minted Agents. Rejected: an Agent is honestly data, and a Chart that cannot say "a tester with these instructions" is not powerful enough to be worth the door.
• An expression language from the start. Rejected above: it is ADR-0008's rejected DSL arriving through a side door; a reference kind can be added later without breaking a written Chart.
• One-shot only, no Chart under a name. Rejected: a test wants the same Chart on every run (the text already gives that), but a person, another tool and an MCP want jr2 run <name>, a Console entry and a Chart that outlives the run that wrote it; and a Chart under a name is a Workflow registered as DATA, which keeps ADR-0069's one publisher of CODE true.
• A Chart as an anonymous run with no Chart wrapper. Rejected: every fence above is the wrapper's; and the run would have no Workflow name for jr2 status, drift reporting and the Console.
• A kit Effect that publishes a Chart from a Machine (publishChart, over the Effector's signed wire, no token). Deferred: nothing needs an Agent to keep a Chart yet; a Machine that wants one later runs it by name after a human or a tool published it. If it comes, it is an Effect the author writes in, with or without a Gate, and never a side effect of running an Open body.

Consequences

• ADR-0008's "code, not config" is restated, not reversed: a human writes code; what a run supplies is data. Its "dynamic plugin loading stays deferred" line retires: code is never loaded dynamically, and a run may bind an Open body with a Chart.
• The walk learns a second mode. Today it is not provide()-aware and reads nothing a per-run binding adds; the door's walk runs over the bound Chart, and the jr2 up walk reads an Open body's declaration (its lent parts, allowed models, ceilings) so the keys and the Instance Harness a Chart could need are placed before any run: a body that lends an Agent with a Workspace puts its allowed models on the pods, and one that allows "none" on the Instance Harness, which is converged for it.
• fingerprintOf stays the wrapper's; the Chart's text and hash ride the body's own snapshot inside RunBlob, and restore admits and compiles the text again. A Chart that no longer passes the door at restore is drift with that reason. Under ADR-0069 a live run holds its Assembly and a publish takes no lent slot from it, so this drift guards a Kit change or a damaged volume, not a later publish.
• The GLOSSARY gains Chart, Chart wrapper, Open body and Reference; Workflow gains its three origins; Open no longer says a run never sees one. The Briefing's Turn part gains a pick's briefing (ADR-0062 as amended): the Chart briefing is its first.
• The @model tier gains the claim chart-refusal: a planner whose pick is run_chart with the narrowed grammar is asked for a Chart that names a slot the body does not lend, the door refuses it, and the planner's next Chart admits. A Chart's prompts are its author's, so the claim measures jr2's text: the Chart briefing and the door's report. The floor is 7 of 10, set ahead of a measured run. Measured 2026-10-19 on the home-lab instrument, one lever per run of ten: with no briefing, 0, 4 and 2 trials (the first report was about twelve lines; the second Chart fixed most and not all); with the briefing and a body that allowed no model, 0 (the first report fell to a median of three lines, but eight first Charts minted an Agent under a never model and the measured pick hit the Menu's "must not have additional properties"); with agents gone from that grammar, 1 of 10 (the second Chart's fault was now one line, "context.summary is supplied by nothing", in six of nine, and every one of them WAS written, from a pick field the Chart never put in required, which the line hid); with that line naming the write and the field, and the briefing teaching required, 5 of 10, and every miss admitted on the third Chart; three of the five misses reached for the kit's gate, offered in the src enum beside the one lent Agent, and the rest of the noise was the Chart sent as a JSON string, which pi's validation refused ("chart: must be object") twelve times in ten trials. With the Gate a lend, 4 of 10 and no gate fault; in three of the six misses the measured pick was that string refusal, twenty times in ten trials. The next run, otherwise unchanged, gave 7 of 10: the floor, and the baseline is written from that read run, with the reading that the gain from 4 is the instrument's own variance across ten trials. A parse of the JSON-text argument was tried in that run and measured inert, since every such string was malformed (ADR-0029, rejected). The misses of the passing run were a Chart without events, a state output beside the Chart's, and one malformed string. A thinking-on cell, run once to ask whether the misses are knowledge or care: 5 of 10 with three void trials (the first Chart admitted more often), the same kinds of miss (events declared and handled by no state, gate named though no grammar offered it), 8% longer per trial and a third more wall time for the voids. Not kept: it does not clear the floor, and it answers the question: the misses are knowledge. With the worked fragment in the narrowed grammar, 9 of 10 with no void trial, in 15 minutes against 23: the one miss was a malformed string, the first reports fell to a median of two lines, and the ten second Charts kept their own state and event names (two of ten reused the fragment's finished). The baseline is that run's. What the next Chart gets wrong is in the trial evidence.
• Deferred, named: a spend ceiling; a CEL-class reference kind; publishChart.