diff --git a/machine-docs/BACKLOG-2b.md b/machine-docs/BACKLOG-2b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1be7a4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/machine-docs/BACKLOG-2b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+# BACKLOG — Phase 2b
+
+The "## Build backlog" section is the Builder's. The "## Adversary findings" section is the Adversary's
+(only the Adversary closes items there, after re-test). Phase plan SSOT:
+`/srv/cc-ci/cc-ci-plan/plan-phase2b-test-performance.md`.
+
+## Adversary findings
+_(none open — Phase 2b not yet claimed. Pre-claim deploy-budget trace recorded in REVIEW-2b.md;
+the WC5 green-cold reseed is flagged there as a B1-doc-completeness item to check at claim time, not a
+defect.)_
diff --git a/machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md b/machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..90d2865
--- /dev/null
+++ b/machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# BUILDER-INBOX (from Adversary)
+
+## @2026-05-31T05:33Z — Phase 2b Adversary loop is LIVE (non-urgent; Phase 2 still in flight)
+Heads-up, not a gate. Operator kicked off the Phase-2b Adversary loop. I created REVIEW-2b.md and
+BACKLOG-2b.md (my files). No verdict yet — nothing claimed. This is non-urgent: Phase 2 isn't `## DONE`
+(plausible Q4.7b / drone Q4.10 / Q5 remain), and Phase 2b is queued behind that per the plan.
+
+I did my own COLD trace of the deploy budget (REVIEW-2b.md) so I'm ready to verify B1–B4 fast when you
+claim. Two things to save you a round-trip:
+
+1. The budget is already minimal — and **tighter than B1's stated `1 + 1(upgrade) + N_deps`**: the
+   upgrade tier reuses the base deploy via the in-place `--force --chaos` reconcile (`_perform_op`
+   never calls `deploy_app`), so the real budget is `1 (base, shared by install+upgrade+backup+restore
+   +custom) + N_cold_deps`, enforced by DG4.1 (`expected = 1 + deps_deployed_count`). Likely outcome:
+   B1 = "already minimal," no redundant deploy to remove. Your B4 doc should state this and that B1's
+   plan-text minimum is conservative.
+
+2. **One completeness item I WILL check** in your B1/B4 doc: the WC5 promote-on-green-cold path
+   (`run_recipe_ci.py:699`) does one *additional, uncounted* `abra app new` on a green COLD run for
+   canonical warm-cache reseed (countfile is popped at :697 first). It's outside the test-sequence
+   budget and not redundant — but B1 asks for "exactly how many deploy cycles happen and why each is
+   necessary," so the doc must mention it or I'll mark it materially incomplete. Just name it.
+
+When you write `docs/perf/deploys.md` (or the DECISIONS Phase-2b note) + claim B1–B4 in STATUS-2b.md
+with WHAT/HOW/EXPECTED, I'll cold-verify (re-trace + confirm a real run's RUN SUMMARY deploy-count).
diff --git a/machine-docs/REVIEW-2b.md b/machine-docs/REVIEW-2b.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e313fb7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/machine-docs/REVIEW-2b.md
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+# REVIEW — Phase 2b (Adversary) — confirm minimal deploy budget
+
+**Phase plan (SSOT):** `/srv/cc-ci/cc-ci-plan/plan-phase2b-test-performance.md`
+**Loop state for THIS phase:** STATUS-2b / BACKLOG-2b / REVIEW-2b / JOURNAL-2b (DECISIONS.md shared).
+Phase 1*/2 STATUS/BACKLOG/REVIEW files are other phases' state — not this phase's.
+
+## Standing state
+- **No Phase-2b gate CLAIMED yet.** As of @2026-05-31T05:33Z there is no STATUS-2b.md, no
+  `docs/perf/deploys.md`/DECISIONS Phase-2b note, and no B1–B4 claim. The Builder is still finishing
+  Phase 2 (plausible Q4.7b + drone Q4.10 + Q5; Phase-2 STATUS not yet `## DONE`).
+- **Queue dependency (plan §0 / status line):** Phase 2b is documented as starting *after* Phase 2
+  reaches `## DONE`. Operator kicked off the Phase-2b Adversary loop now (manual transition). Phase-2b
+  DoD (B1–B4) is independent of Phase-2 completion — it is a property of the already-existing harness —
+  so the cold analysis below can be done now; the formal verdict awaits the Builder's claim.
+- No VETO from this phase. (The standing Phase-2 DONE VETO lives in REVIEW-2.md and is unaffected.)
+
+## Pre-claim independent cold analysis (anti-anchoring baseline) @2026-05-31T05:33Z
+Done from a cold read of the harness ONLY (code + git), with NO Builder narrative consulted — this is
+my own minimal-budget expectation, to be compared against whatever the Builder later claims.
+
+### Deploy call sites (every `lifecycle.deploy_app` = one `abra app new` = one counted deploy)
+`_record_deploy()` (lifecycle.py:107) is invoked ONLY from inside `deploy_app` (lifecycle.py:211), so
+the run's deploy-count == number of `deploy_app` calls during the run. Call sites:
+1. `run_recipe_ci.py:819` — **the single base deploy** of the recipe under test. `version=base` where
+   `base = UPGRADE_BASE_VERSION-or-previous if "upgrade" in stages else target`. Shared by ALL tiers.
+2. `runner/harness/deps.py:100` — **one deploy per COLD declared dependency** (warm/live deps deploy 0;
+   they only get a per-run realm).
+3. `run_recipe_ci.py:699` — **WC5 promote-on-green-cold reseed** — NOT part of the test sequence and
+   NOT counted: at line 697 the run pops `CCCI_DEPLOY_COUNT_FILE` (countfile already asserted+removed
+   at 958–961) before this deploy. It is a post-run, green-cold-only canonical warm-cache reseed.
+
+### Tiers that do NOT add a deploy (deploy-sharing — the heart of the budget)
+`_perform_op` (run_recipe_ci.py:242, docstring 246–251 explicit): "None of these call deploy_app, so
+the deploy-count guard (DG4.1) stays 1."
+- **upgrade** → `generic.perform_upgrade` = in-place `abra app deploy --force --chaos` to PR-head
+  (HC1 reconciliation, real old→new crossover) — reuses the base deploy, no new `app new`.
+- **backup / restore** → operate on the same live deployment.
+- **install** → has no op (assertion-only on the base deploy).
+- **custom / OIDC wiring** → in-place `--chaos` redeploy (`_run_setup_custom_tests_hook`), not counted.
+
+### Enforcement (B2)
+`run_recipe_ci.py:958–1010`: reads countfile → `deploy_count`; computes
+`expected_deploy_count = 1 + deps_deployed_count` (deps_deployed = cold deps only; warm excluded,
+984/982). Prints `RUN SUMMARY → deploy-count = N (expect M)`. If `deploy_count != expected` →
+`overall = 1` + stderr `!! deploy-count N != M (DG4.1 violation)`. So a redundant `deploy_app` ANYWHERE
+in the sequence fails the run. This is a genuine, non-vacuous guard.
+
+### My independent minimal-budget conclusion
+Per-recipe test sequence: **`deploys == 1 (base, shared by install+upgrade+backup+restore+custom) +
+N_cold_deps`**, enforced by DG4.1. This is **MINIMAL — and tighter than B1's stated expectation** of
+`1 (base) + 1 (upgrade tier) + N_deps`: the upgrade tier needs NO separate deploy because the base
+deploy IS the prior version and the upgrade is an in-place chaos reconcile. So B1's stated minimum is
+conservative; the implementation already beats it. Nothing to remove — already minimal.
+
+### Open item for the Builder's B1/B4 doc (must be addressed honestly, not a defect yet)
+The B1 doc must NOT claim "exactly 1+N_deps deploys per run, full stop" without noting the **WC5
+green-cold reseed** (call site 3): on a green COLD run there is one additional uncounted `abra app new`
+for canonical warm-cache maintenance. It is outside the test-sequence budget and is not redundant, but
+B1 asks for "exactly how many deploy cycles happen and why each is necessary" — the doc must mention it
+or it is materially incomplete. I will check the doc for this when claimed.
+
+## Verdicts
+_(none yet — awaiting B1–B4 claim in STATUS-2b.md)_