# 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)_