claim(2b): deploy budget confirmed minimal+enforced (1+N_cold_deps); B1-B4 claimed

Phase 2b confirm-and-document outcome: per-recipe test-sequence deploy budget is
already minimal — `deploys == 1 (base, shared by all 5 tiers) + N_cold_deps` — and
tighter than plan B1's nominal `1+1(upgrade)+N` because the upgrade is an in-place
chaos redeploy of the prev-version base, not a separate deploy. Enforced as a hard
failure by DG4.1 (expected = 1 + deps_deployed_count, run_recipe_ci.py:1005-1010).
No redundant deploy found; none removed (none existed).

- docs/perf/deploys.md: the budget record (B4), names the out-of-budget WC5 reseed
- STATUS-2b.md: B1-B4 claim with WHAT/HOW/EXPECTED/WHERE for cold verify
- JOURNAL-2b.md / BACKLOG-2b.md / DECISIONS.md: reasoning + settled note
- consume machine-docs/BUILDER-INBOX.md (Adversary heads-up processed)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

machine-docs/JOURNAL-2b.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+# JOURNAL — Phase 2b (reasoning; WHY) — confirm minimal deploy budget
+
+## 2026-05-31 — Bootstrap + analysis (Builder)
+
+Operator manually kicked off Phase 2b (narrowed scope, plan §0): the ONLY task is to confirm the
+per-recipe test sequence uses the minimum number of deploys, and fix it if not, without weakening any
+test. Broad empirical-perf work is parked in IDEAS. Phase 2 is not yet `## DONE` (plausible/drone/Q5
+remain), but B1–B4 are a property of the already-existing harness, so the analysis is independent of
+Phase-2 completion.
+
+### Method
+Traced every `abra app deploy`/`upgrade`/`new` path through the harness. Key realization: the only
+thing that increments the DG4.1 deploy counter is `lifecycle._record_deploy()`, and it is called from
+exactly one place — inside `lifecycle.deploy_app` (`:211`). So "deploy count" == number of `deploy_app`
+calls in a run. Enumerated all `deploy_app` callers: base deploy (`run_recipe_ci.py:819`), per-dep
+(`deps.py:100`), and WC5 promote (`:699`, which pops the countfile first so it's outside the budget).
+
+### Why the budget is minimal (and tighter than plan B1's nominal text)
+Plan B1 frames the minimum as `1 base + 1 upgrade + N_deps`, assuming the upgrade tier needs its own
+prior-version deploy. The cc-ci design avoids that: when the upgrade tier runs, the *base* deploy is
+done at the **previous published version** (`base = prev or target`, `:746-754`), and the upgrade is an
+**in-place chaos redeploy** of PR-head onto that same app (`perform_upgrade` → `chaos_redeploy`, which
+does NOT call `deploy_app`). So the prior-version deploy and the base deploy are the SAME deploy — the
+upgrade tier adds zero deploys. backup/restore also operate on the same app. Net: `1 + N_cold_deps`.
+This is the deploy-sharing the operator expected; nothing to remove because nothing is redundant.
+
+### Why I trust the enforcement (B2 is real, not vacuous)
+`run_recipe_ci.py:1005-1010` turns `deploy_count != expected_deploy_count` into a non-zero exit. So
+every GREEN run is itself a proof the recipe stayed within `1 + N_cold_deps` — a redundant redeploy
+would push the count over and fail the run red. The historical Phase-2 runs (recorded in
+STATUS-2/REVIEW-2) corroborate: every recipe ran at `deploy-count = 1`, or `2 (expect 2)` for the one
+cold-dep recipe (lasuite-docs + cold keycloak). Warm keycloak (lasuite-meet) → 0 dep deploys → expect 1.
+
+### Why B3 holds
+Sharing one deploy does not skip assertions: all five tiers still run their generic+overlay assertions
+against the shared app; upgrade is a real prev→PR-head crossover verified by `assert_upgraded`; P4
+backup→restore is real data-integrity; per-run isolation/teardown is unchanged. Only the deploy COUNT
+is constrained, never the coverage.
+
+### Cross-loop note
+The Adversary's independent pre-claim cold trace (REVIEW-2b @05:33Z) reached the identical conclusion
+and flagged exactly one completeness item: the B1/B4 doc must NAME the WC5 green-cold reseed
+(`run_recipe_ci.py:699`) — one additional uncounted `abra app new` for canonical warm-cache
+maintenance, outside the test-sequence budget. `docs/perf/deploys.md` addresses this in its
+"Out of scope of the budget (intentionally)" section, and STATUS-2b names it in verify-step (a).
+Claimed B1–B4 accordingly.