Merge pull request 'feat(telemetry): tell a ranker decline from a repeat before the observation window opens (#3497)' (#139) from dev into main

plugin/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 {
   "name": "scribe",
   "description": "Scribe system-of-record for Claude Code: MCP tools over your notes/tasks/projects/rules, a session-start push channel that surfaces your always-on rules + active-project context, process-skills (writing-plans, systematic-debugging, verification, brainstorming, reusing-code), and your saved Scribe Processes auto-surfaced as skills (/scribe:sync). Replaces superpowers + file-memory with one app-backed plugin.",
-  "version": "2026.09.04.0140",
+  "version": "2026.09.03.0329",
   "author": {
     "name": "Bryan Van Deusen"
   },

plugin/hooks/scribe_static_context.md

@@ -21,16 +21,6 @@ for the operator's work, and as your own working memory across sessions.
   compaction — call `list_always_on_rules()` (and `enter_project()` when a
   project is in scope) BEFORE acting. When a loaded rule and a default habit
   disagree, the rule wins; if no rule speaks to it, ask rather than assume.
-- **What you loaded is not all of the rules.** Only the always-on tier arrives
-  that way; conditional rules are RETRIEVED, and one you were never handed
-  binds exactly as hard. So before a consequential act, `search` for a rule
-  about it (`content_type="rule"`) rather than concluding from an empty
-  loaded set that nothing applies. "I was not told" is not the same as "there
-  is no rule," and only one of those is checkable.
-  This bites hardest on which TOOL to reach for — curling an API that has an
-  MCP client, standing up a local stack, running a suite CI owns. Those feel
-  like mechanics rather than decisions, so they raise no doubt and generate no
-  query; the moment you are most confident is the moment to look.
 - **Recall before acting** — before you answer anything about the operator's
   work or start a task, `search` Scribe first; assume a related note, task, or
   decision already exists. Concretely, reach for recall whenever a request

plugin/skills/using-scribe/SKILL.md

@@ -56,31 +56,10 @@ Two constraints on *how* that's achieved:
    re-deriving it or opening a duplicate. When a project is in scope, pass its
    `project_id` so results stay scoped.
 
-2. **Standing rules are binding — and the ones you were handed are not all of
-   them.** Load the resident set via `list_always_on_rules()` at session start
-   (see "Do this first"); treat every one as binding. Pull a rule's full
-   statement with `get_rule(id)` when it's about to bite. When a project is in
-   scope, `enter_project(id)` also returns its applicable rules.
-
-   Rules come in two tiers. **Always-on** rules are delivered — they arrive
-   whether or not you ask. **Conditional** rules are RETRIEVED, and one binds
-   just as hard for never having been handed to you. So before a consequential
-   act, `search(content_type="rule")` on what you are about to do. An empty
-   loaded set is not evidence that no rule applies; it is only evidence that
-   none was pushed, and those are different claims.
-
-   The tier split exists because delivery does not scale: every resident rule
-   costs tokens in every session forever, so a rulebook that grows past a few
-   dozen either stops growing or stops fitting. Retrieval is what lets the
-   rulebook keep growing — but retrieval only fires if something asks.
-
-   **Ask hardest where you feel most certain.** Rules about which TOOL to reach
-   for — use the forge's MCP client rather than curling its API, don't stand up
-   a local stack, don't run the suite CI owns — govern moves that feel like
-   mechanics rather than decisions. A reflex raises no doubt, so it generates
-   no query, so the rule that would have stopped it is never retrieved. That is
-   the failure this instruction exists to prevent, and confidence is its only
-   warning sign.
+2. **Standing rules are binding.** Load them via `list_always_on_rules()` at
+   session start (see "Do this first"); treat every one as binding. Pull a
+   rule's full statement with `get_rule(id)` when it's about to bite. When a
+   project is in scope, `enter_project(id)` also returns its applicable rules.
 
 3. **Update over duplicate.** When recording, prefer updating an existing
    note/rule/task over creating a new one. Search first; revise what's there.

src/scribe/mcp/server.py

@@ -45,31 +45,6 @@ from quart import Quart
 # The accepted cost: an agent that never opens create_note's docstring never
 # learns the field exists. Guidance lives in the create_note / update_note
 # docstrings and the using-scribe skill instead.
-#
-# Milestone 333 step 3 (2026-09-04) bought the HOW bullet's second clause —
-# search(content_type="rule") before a consequential act — by TRADING OUT
-# "Processes are saved procedures (follow verbatim)" and "Deletes are
-# trash-recoverable". Recorded so the trade is not silently reversed:
-#   - Both were already in test_instruction_surfaces_agree's DISPLACED_TOPICS
-#     and already stated on a delivered surface, so nothing fell off: the
-#     process reflex is in every scribe-proc-* skill listing (each says the
-#     process governs and is followed verbatim), and trash recovery is in the
-#     delete_*/list_trash/restore docstrings, which is where per-tool guidance
-#     belongs by this block's own doctrine.
-#   - What it bought is not per-tool guidance and has nowhere else to live at
-#     session-start altitude. Rules were retrievable only by RESIDENCY: the
-#     always-on preload put them in front of the agent, and nothing told a
-#     session to go looking for one it had not been handed. The tier split is
-#     therefore load-bearing on ANY install (rule 115): a delivered rule costs
-#     tokens in every session forever, so a rulebook that only delivers cannot
-#     grow past what one session can hold, and every rule worth keeping has to
-#     become resident to bind at all. Retrieval is what lets it keep growing —
-#     and retrieval fires only if something asks, which nothing told a session
-#     to do. A tool-choice reflex asks least of all (#3476, #161).
-#   - This states the PULL for conditional rules, exactly as the surrounding
-#     line states it for always-on ones. Rule 119 makes these surfaces the
-#     specification, so the same sentence lands on all three session-start
-#     surfaces, and test_instruction_surfaces_agree pins it.
 _INSTRUCTIONS = """
 Scribe is the operator's self-hosted second brain and system of record — and
 yours: recall from it before acting, record as you go. Keep no parallel copy
@@ -88,13 +63,13 @@ Hierarchy: Project -> Milestone -> Task/Note. The map, by purpose:
   active project_id to stay in scope.
 - WHERE work happens: Systems. Tag records with system_ids as you write;
   create_system when the area is unmodelled.
-- HOW: rules bind. list_always_on_rules() at start; before a consequential
-  act, search(content_type="rule") — the resident set is not all of them.
+- HOW: rules are binding — list_always_on_rules() at session start.
 - UI: the project's design system is binding — resolve_design_system /
   get_design_system_stylesheet before hand-writing a value.
 - REUSE: search snippets before writing a helper; record what you build with
   create_snippet; classify shapes against canon (classify_shapes) — a
-  consumer map is rows, never prose.
+  consumer map is rows, never prose. Processes are saved procedures (follow
+  verbatim). Deletes are trash-recoverable.
 
 A task is a note with status (*_note vs *_task tools).
 Creates are duplicate-gated: a near-match BLOCKS and returns the existing

src/scribe/mcp/tools/rulebooks.py

@@ -315,61 +315,6 @@ async def create_rule(
 ) -> dict:
     """Create a new rule in a rulebook (a SHARED rule — keep it general).
 
-    PROPOSE RULES READILY, AND WRITE ONE WHEN THE OPERATOR SAYS YES. Noticing
-    that something has hardened into a standing instruction is valuable work,
-    and a session that notices it and says nothing has thrown the observation
-    away. So raise it whenever you see one. The single step that belongs
-    between noticing and writing is the operator's yes: a rule binds every
-    future session, and they are the person it binds.
-
-    Their yes is also the only moment the rule is reliably IN FRONT of them.
-    After the write it may not be again for months — a conditional rule is not
-    read aloud at session start, and a project-scoped one does not appear in
-    an unfiltered list_rules() at all. So the proposal is the review.
-
-    When the operator asks for a rule in so many words, that IS the yes —
-    write it and move on. The loop below is for the rule you thought of.
-
-    A PROPOSAL CARRIES FOUR THINGS, and the fourth is the one that decides it:
-
-      1. WHAT it would require — the statement, in the words it would carry,
-         not a gloss of them. The operator is agreeing to text.
-      2. INTENT — what it changes about how work gets done, and what goes
-         wrong today without it. "Be careful about X" is not an intent; the
-         behaviour that would differ tomorrow is.
-      3. WHY NOW — the incident, observation or decision behind it. Pass that
-         record as arose_from_id, and say it in the conversation too: the
-         field is for the reader six months out, the sentence is for the
-         person deciding.
-      4. HOW IT WOULD BE ENFORCED — a test, a CI check, a hook, a schema
-         constraint, a duplicate gate, a review step... or nothing, in which
-         case say so plainly: "nothing — this is prose a session has to
-         remember." Answer this one honestly and it will sometimes dissolve
-         the rule, which is the point rather than a side effect. What a test
-         can assert should BE that test; a rule is what remains when nothing
-         mechanical can hold the thing. A rulebook grows by default and
-         shrinks only on purpose, so a question that prevents a rule is worth
-         more than any question that improves one's wording.
-
-    THEN CLOSE WITH A QUESTION THEY CAN ANSWER IN ONE WORD. Offer three
-    answers, and make the middle one the easy one:
-
-      * "Approve it AS WRITTEN" — you create it with the statement exactly as
-        shown. This is what makes element 1 load-bearing: they approved TEXT,
-        so that text is what gets stored, verbatim.
-      * "LET'S TALK ABOUT IT" — the wording, the scope, the tier, whether it
-        wants to be a rule at all. Most good rules arrive this way, so treat
-        this answer as the expected one rather than a setback.
-      * "NO" — let it go. If the observation is still worth keeping, it is a
-        note (create_note): recorded, findable, and binding on nobody.
-
-    Where the interface offers structured choices, ask it that way — a
-    question with named options is answered in a click, while the same
-    question inside a paragraph is answered by scrolling past. Where it does
-    not, write the three options out as three options. Either way ask once
-    and let the answer stand; re-raising a declined proposal argues a rule
-    into existence, which is the thing this whole loop exists to prevent.
-
     A rulebook rule is shared by every project that gets the rulebook: an
     always_on rulebook binds ALL your projects; a subscribed rulebook binds the
     projects that opt in. So a rulebook rule must read as a general standard —
@@ -488,16 +433,6 @@ async def create_project_rule(
     the rule is returned in get_project's applicable_rules (under
     project_rules) and in list_rules(project_id=...).
 
-    PROPOSE, THEN WRITE ON A YES — create_rule's opening carries the whole
-    loop: the four things a proposal states (what it would require, its
-    intent, why now, and how it would be enforced) and the one-word question
-    that closes it (approve as written / talk about it / no). All of it
-    applies here unchanged. Reach for that loop MORE readily on this surface,
-    not less: a project rule stays out of an unfiltered list_rules(), and a
-    conditional one stays out of session start too, so the operator's yes is
-    the one moment this rule is certain to have been seen by the person it
-    binds.
-
     Check first whether a rule is the right shape at all — create_rule's
     opening asks that question and it applies identically here. A visual
     standard is a design system; a procedure is a process (create_process);

src/scribe/mcp/tools/search.py

@@ -237,30 +237,10 @@ It is an UPPER BOUND per surface: a pull records the door it came
     those same rules over time: a resident set surfaced thousands of times and
     opened never is the dead-weight signal, one tier up.
 
-    Read it against `sources["write_path_rule"]`. That arm was once believed
-    never to decline — the reading that scoped #3311 — but it was the arm's
-    `retrieval_logs` row being written only on calls that FOUND something, so
-    the zeros were missing rather than absent (#3497). Measured since, it
-    declines the large majority of its calls like any other surface.
-
-    EVERY COUNTER BLOCK CARRIES ITS OWN COVERAGE — `complete_from` and
-    `covers_window`. `complete_from` is when the number became trustworthy:
-    for one source, its first recorded row; for a section that sums several,
-    the LATEST of theirs, because a total is complete only once every
-    contributor was being written. `covers_window: false` means the window
-    reaches back further than the recording does, so the count is a fraction
-    of the period it appears to describe.
-
-    READ IT BEFORE COMPARING TWO NUMBERS, and especially before comparing
-    across a deploy. A counter added last week, read over a 30-day window,
-    reports a real count against an imagined denominator — and the result is
-    a plausible fraction rather than an obvious zero, which is what makes it
-    dangerous. That reading cost milestone #379 five steps aimed at a defect
-    that did not exist.
-
-    `covers_window` is null, never false, when nothing was ever recorded:
-    "no measurement" is not "partial measurement", the same distinction
-    `suppression`'s null carries a few paragraphs up.
+    Read it against `sources["write_path_rule"]`. That surface has never once
+    declined to fire, and until this block existed there was no way to tell a
+    well-tuned arm from a bar it cannot fail to clear (#3311). `pull_through`
+    is the number that tells them apart.
 
     `rule_usage_failed: true` means that read failed while the rest of the
     readout stood. The counts are still present so a caller can render, but

src/scribe/services/embeddings.py

@@ -774,17 +774,10 @@ async def semantic_search_rules(
     is the surfacing question, and it has its own machinery
     (get_applicable_rules) rather than a second, subtly different copy here.
 
-    `tier` narrows to one tier, and NONE is the ordinary case. The write-path
-    and pre-tool hints deliberately pass nothing: an always-on rule is already
-    in the session, but being in a list from turn zero is not the same as being
-    in front of the reader when the action it governs is taken, and filtering
-    on tier made a whole class of rules permanently ineligible for the one
-    mechanism that surfaces a rule AT the moment. Relevance is the threshold's
-    job; see the block above RULEHINT_LIMIT in services/plugin_context.py for
-    the argument and for what the resulting scores are being read against.
-
-    Pass a tier when a caller genuinely wants one class — a listing, an audit,
-    a UI that renders the tiers apart. Not to approximate relevance.
+    `tier` narrows to one tier. The write-path hint passes "conditional",
+    because an always-on rule is ALREADY in the session — surfacing it again as
+    a suggestion is pure noise, and noise on a hint that fires on every write
+    is how a hint gets ignored.
 
     Collapses to best-chunk-per-rule like the note search, so a long rule split
     across chunks competes once rather than crowding the results with itself.

src/scribe/services/plugin_context.py

@@ -94,17 +94,13 @@ WRITEPATH_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD = 0.68
 # THE STRUCTURAL ARGUMENT, which is the only kind admissible here (rule 115).
 # Two facts hold on any install, including one with six rules and no telemetry:
 #
-#   1. The eligible corpus is SMALL — every rule an install owns, still only
-#      a few dozen documents against thousands of notes. A top-k over a small
-#      pool always returns something, so "the best match cleared the bar"
-#      drifts from "a good match exists" toward "N things were ranked". A bar
-#      calibrated for best-of-thousands is cleared by best-of-forty as
-#      arithmetic rather than relevance.
-#      This argument WEAKENED when the arms stopped filtering to one tier
-#      (see the note on that below): a larger pool makes clearing the bar
-#      mean more, not less. The threshold was deliberately left where it was
-#      anyway — moving two variables at once would make the resulting
-#      distribution unreadable, and this one errs toward silence on purpose.
+#   1. The eligible corpus is TINY. The arm searches `tier="conditional"`
+#      rules only — a handful to a few dozen documents against thousands of
+#      notes. A top-k over forty candidates always returns something, so
+#      "the best match cleared the bar" stops meaning "a good match exists"
+#      and starts meaning "forty things were ranked". A bar calibrated for
+#      best-of-thousands is cleared by best-of-forty as arithmetic, not
+#      relevance.
 #   2. Rules are short imperative technical English — a far more HOMOGENEOUS
 #      corpus than note prose. #2223 measured the floor for code against prose
 #      at 0.55-0.63 and set 0.68 above it. A more homogeneous corpus has a
@@ -132,14 +128,9 @@ RULEHINT_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD = 0.72
 # ONE rule per write, not two — and this is deliberately NOT a knob.
 #
 # With a corpus this small, top-k does as much damage as the threshold: k=2
-# over a few dozen candidates means the second line is almost always the
-# second-best noise, arriving with the same confident framing as the first.
-# Halving k halves that regardless of where the bar sits.
-#
-# It also BOUNDS the blast radius of widening the pool (below): with k=1 a
-# wider corpus can change WHICH rule surfaces and how often one does, but it
-# can never make a single hint longer. The loudness of one hint and the
-# eligibility of a rule are separate controls, and only one of them moved.
+# over forty candidates means the second line is almost always the second-best
+# noise, arriving with the same confident framing as the first. Halving k
+# halves that regardless of where the bar sits.
 #
 # It stays a constant because it is a decision about how LOUD one hint may be,
 # not a per-install tuning question. The hint already carries prior art, shape
@@ -149,45 +140,6 @@ RULEHINT_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD = 0.72
 # adds a way to misconfigure the surface (rule 25 cuts both ways).
 RULEHINT_LIMIT = 1
 
-# WHY THE ARMS NO LONGER FILTER TO ONE TIER (#3702).
-#
-# Both arms used to pass `tier="conditional"`, on the reasoning that an
-# always-on rule is already in the session, so surfacing it again is pure
-# noise. That reasoning conflates two different things:
-#
-#   PRESENT IN CONTEXT  — the rule was delivered at session start.
-#   SALIENT AT THE MOMENT  — the rule is in front of the reader when the
-#                            action it governs is about to be taken.
-#
-# A rule handed over in a list at turn zero is present while a session writes
-# a config value three hundred turns later. It is not surfaced. So the filter
-# did not merely skip a redundant hint — it made a whole class of rules
-# permanently ineligible for the only mechanism that puts a rule in front of
-# an agent AT the moment, and the more important a rule is, the more likely
-# it was in that class.
-#
-# The deeper defect is that the filter was doing the THRESHOLD's job. Whether
-# a rule belongs in this hint is a relevance question, and a similarity bar is
-# the control for relevance. A categorical exclusion standing in for a
-# relevance judgment cannot be tuned, cannot be measured, and cannot be wrong
-# in a way anybody notices.
-#
-# THIS IS A MEASURED CHANGE, NOT A SETTLED ONE. The old comment's fear is
-# real — a hint that fires on every write and says obvious things teaches the
-# reader to skip the block, and the surface is then lost along with its true
-# positives. That fear had simply never been checked. `retrieval_logs` already
-# records top_score, result_count and the query for every call, so the
-# evidence now arrives on its own:
-#
-#   - rules clear the bar often and at high scores  -> the fear was justified,
-#     the filter was a crude proxy for a bar set too low, and the WORK IS THE
-#     BAR. Any reinstated filter should then carry a measured reason.
-#   - rules clear rarely, in a thin band near the bar -> the filter was never
-#     the right instrument and relevance was always sufficient.
-#
-# Only the eligibility moved. The bar and k=1 were both left exactly where
-# they were, so the resulting distribution has one cause.
-
 # How much of a command reaches the embedding (#3476). A shell call is not a
 # file: most are short, and the ones that are not are usually a heredoc or a
 # pasted script whose bulk says nothing about which rule applies. The VERB AND
@@ -1253,7 +1205,7 @@ async def build_write_path_hint(
         rule_t0 = time.perf_counter()
         hits = await semantic_search_rules(
             user_id, code or path, limit=RULEHINT_LIMIT,
-            threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"],
+            threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"], tier="conditional",
         )
         rule_ms = (time.perf_counter() - rule_t0) * 1000.0
         fresh = [(score, rule) for score, rule in hits if rule.id not in already]
@@ -1385,7 +1337,7 @@ async def build_tool_rule_hint(
         t0 = time.perf_counter()
         hits = await semantic_search_rules(
             user_id, query, limit=RULEHINT_LIMIT,
-            threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"],
+            threshold=cfg["rule_threshold"], tier="conditional",
         )
         duration_ms = (time.perf_counter() - t0) * 1000.0
 

src/scribe/services/retrieval_telemetry.py

@@ -217,57 +217,6 @@ def _round(v, places: int = 4):
     return None if v is None else round(float(v), places)
 
 
-async def _complete_from(session, model, user_id) -> dict[str, Any]:
-    """When each source in `model` started being recorded, and the instant the
-    WHOLE table is complete from. Returns {source: earliest_row, "*": latest}.
-
-    THE GRAIN IS THE SOURCE, and that is the whole point. `retrieval_logs` has
-    rows going back months, so a table-level "earliest row" says months and
-    tells a reader their window is fully covered — while a source added last
-    week has a week of rows and a counter that silently means something else.
-    Per-source is the only grain at which partial coverage is visible.
-
-    THE AGGREGATE USES THE LATEST, NOT THE EARLIEST. A number that sums several
-    sources is complete only once EVERY contributor was recording, so "*" is a
-    max over the sources, not a min. Taking the min here would reproduce the
-    exact reading this exists to prevent: the oldest source vouching for the
-    youngest.
-
-    All-time, deliberately unfiltered by the window — a query bounded by
-    `since` can only ever report something at or after `since`, which answers
-    nothing.
-    """
-    rows = (
-        await session.execute(
-            select(model.source, func.min(model.created_at))
-            .where(model.user_id == user_id)
-            .group_by(model.source)
-        )
-    ).all()
-    out: dict[str, Any] = {src: ts for src, ts in rows if ts is not None}
-    stamps = list(out.values())
-    out["*"] = max(stamps) if stamps else None
-    return out
-
-
-def _coverage(complete_from, since) -> dict:
-    """The two keys every counter block carries, from one timestamp.
-
-    `covers_window` is None — never False — when nothing was ever recorded.
-    "No rows at all" is not "partial coverage", it is no measurement, and the
-    null convention #3497 established for `suppression` holds here for the
-    same reason: absent must not read as a verdict.
-    """
-    return {
-        # iso() already returns None for an unset value (#2845) — the guard
-        # belongs on covers_window, which is a verdict, not a serialisation.
-        "complete_from": iso(complete_from),
-        "covers_window": (
-            None if complete_from is None else complete_from <= since
-        ),
-    }
-
-
 async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
     """What the retrieval telemetry says, per surface, over a window.
 
@@ -334,9 +283,6 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
     by_source_rows = None
     rule_rows = None
     distinct_rules_surfaced = distinct_rules_pulled = 0
-    # None means the coverage read did not happen — distinct from a table with
-    # no rows, which is {"*": None}. Same reason `read_failed` exists.
-    note_complete = rule_complete = None
 
     try:
         async with async_session() as session:
@@ -365,15 +311,8 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
                     .group_by(RetrievalLog.source)
                 )
             ).all()
-            log_complete = await _complete_from(session, RetrievalLog, user_id)
             for row in rows:
-                source = row[0]
-                bucket = _bucket(list(row[1:]))
-                # Per SOURCE, not per table: retrieval_logs goes back months
-                # while any individual arm may be days old, and the table's
-                # age would vouch for an arm that has barely started.
-                bucket.update(_coverage(log_complete.get(source), since))
-                out["sources"][source] = bucket
+                out["sources"][row[0]] = _bucket(list(row[1:]))
 
             # The corpus side, at its own grain. `ambient` mirrors
             # note_usage.usage_for_notes: an ambient surfacing was not a scored
@@ -400,7 +339,6 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
                     .group_by(NoteUsageEvent.event, NoteUsageEvent.source)
                 )
             ).all()
-            note_complete = await _complete_from(session, NoteUsageEvent, user_id)
 
             # Distinct-note counts need their OWN queries, and this is not
             # fussiness: count(distinct note_id) per (event, source) group
@@ -528,9 +466,6 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
                         .group_by(RuleUsageEvent.event, RuleUsageEvent.source)
                     )
                 ).all()
-                rule_complete = await _complete_from(
-                    session, RuleUsageEvent, user_id,
-                )
                 # The rows carry `source`, so the ranked/ambient split is done
                 # below rather than in SQL — the bulk surfaces started emitting
                 # on 2026-09-03 (#3473), so there IS an ambient class now.
@@ -640,10 +575,6 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
             }
         usage["by_source"] = by_source
 
-    # The SECTION's coverage, from the latest source to start recording — a
-    # figure that sums several sources is complete only once every one of them
-    # was being written. `_complete_from` computes that as "*".
-    usage.update(_coverage((note_complete or {}).get("*"), since))
     out["usage"] = usage
 
     # ── Rules, deliberately a SEPARATE block ────────────────────────────
@@ -721,7 +652,6 @@ async def retrieval_summary(user_id: int | None, *, days: int = 30) -> dict:
         round(rule_usage["pulled_by_agent"] / rule_usage["surfaced"], 4)
         if rule_usage["surfaced"] else None
     )
-    rule_usage.update(_coverage((rule_complete or {}).get("*"), since))
     out["rule_usage"] = rule_usage
 
     return out

tests/test_instruction_surfaces_agree.py

@@ -195,46 +195,6 @@ def test_displaced_topics_live_on_a_delivered_surface():
     )
 
 
-# The SECOND pull (milestone 333 step 3). `list_always_on_rules()` fetches the
-# resident tier; this one says that tier is not all of them, and that a
-# conditional rule has to be gone looking for. However a surface words the
-# surrounding prose, it names the call.
-RETRIEVE = 'content_type="rule"'
-
-
-def test_every_session_start_surface_states_the_conditional_retrieval():
-    """The push/pull asymmetry, one level in.
-
-    The tests above pin that a session PULLS the resident rules rather than
-    trusting the SessionStart push. This pins the same shape between the two
-    TIERS: an always-on rule is delivered, a conditional one is retrieved, and
-    a surface that states only the first leaves a session reading its loaded
-    set as the whole rulebook.
-
-    That reading is wrong in the direction that costs something. "Nothing was
-    pushed" and "no rule applies" are different claims, and only one of them
-    has been checked — the same asymmetry as #2198, now between tiers instead
-    of between channels.
-
-    It is also what made the always-on tier the only one that worked, on any
-    install rather than this one (rule 115). A rule nothing retrieves has to be
-    resident to bind at all, so every rule worth keeping becomes resident; and
-    a resident rule costs tokens in every session forever, so a rulebook that
-    only delivers cannot grow past what one session can hold. Retrieval is what
-    lifts that ceiling — and it only fires if something asks.
-    """
-    missing = []
-    for path in SESSION_START_SURFACES:
-        if RETRIEVE not in path.read_text():
-            missing.append(str(path.relative_to(ROOT)))
-    assert not missing, (
-        f"these surfaces state the always-on pull but never tell the agent to "
-        f"retrieve a conditional rule ({RETRIEVE}): {missing}. A session that "
-        f"reads its loaded set as the whole rulebook will act on \"I was not "
-        f"told\" as if it meant \"there is no rule\" (milestone 333 step 3)."
-    )
-
-
 def test_no_surface_names_the_push_without_stating_the_pull():
     """The exact shape #2497 took.
 

tests/test_rule_creation_asks_first.py

@@ -1,120 +0,0 @@
-"""Both rule-creation tools run the propose-then-approve loop (#3557).
-
-WHY THIS EXISTS
-
-Every other gate on `create_rule` and `create_project_rule` is about SHAPE:
-is this a rule or a process, is it one thing you could violate, is it general
-enough for a rulebook, is it a near-duplicate. All of those improve a rule
-someone has already decided to write. None of them asks the prior question —
-whether the person the rule will bind has agreed to be bound by it.
-
-That question belongs at the tool, because the tool is the last surface a
-caller reads before the write, and because the write is less reversible than
-it looks. The operator's yes is not merely consent; it is the one moment the
-rule is certainly IN FRONT of them. Afterwards it may not be again for
-months: a conditional rule is not read aloud at session start, and a
-project-scoped rule does not appear in an unfiltered `list_rules()` at all.
-The proposal IS the review, so there had better be one.
-
-WHY IT IS PHRASED AS A PRACTICE AND NOT A PROHIBITION
-
-The first cut of this guidance opened "NOT YOURS TO CALL UNPROMPTED." That is
-the wrong instrument, and the failure it invites is worse than the one it
-prevents: a caller reading a prohibition stops NOTICING rule-shaped things,
-rather than noticing them and asking. The wanted behaviour is more proposals,
-not fewer — spotting that something has hardened into a standing instruction
-is valuable work, and the only step that was ever missing came after it.
-
-So the docstrings describe what to DO: propose readily, state four things,
-close with a question the operator answers in one word. This test is written
-the same way — it asserts the parts of the loop are present, and has nothing
-to say about any wording that forbids.
-
-The fourth element — how the rule would be ENFORCED — is not ceremony. It is
-the part that sometimes dissolves the rule: a thing a test can assert should
-be that test, and a rule is what is left when nothing mechanical can hold it.
-A rulebook grows by default and shrinks only on purpose, so the question that
-prevents a rule earns more than any question that improves one's wording.
-
-WHAT THIS PINS, AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
-
-STRUCTURE, never wording — the same bargain the disambiguator guard (#3123)
-strikes next door. Each element matches a family of synonyms, so the prose
-stays free to be rewritten, reordered or sharpened; only DELETING one fails.
-Pinning phrasing would make every improvement a red build, and a test that
-punishes editing is a test someone deletes.
-
-It cannot tell whether an agent actually proposes. Nothing in a docstring
-can. It catches the regression that really happens: guidance tidied away in
-a later pass by someone who read it as throat-clearing in front of the Args.
-"""
-import pytest
-
-from tests.helpers import tool_doc as _doc
-
-# Both surfaces, because the one that needs it most is the one that looks
-# minor. A project rule is the least visible record the system can hold —
-# absent from an unfiltered list_rules(), and absent from session start too
-# whenever it is conditional — so the surface that writes one carries the
-# larger risk while reading as the smaller act.
-_SURFACES = [
-    ("scribe.mcp.tools.rulebooks", "create_rule"),
-    ("scribe.mcp.tools.rulebooks", "create_project_rule"),
-]
-
-# The loop, element by element, each as a family of ways to say it. A
-# docstring satisfies an element by containing ANY member — that is the room
-# left for rewriting. The families deliberately exclude bare words a
-# docstring would hold by accident ("why", "how", "reason", "rule"), which
-# would let the assertion pass on prose that says nothing of the kind.
-_ELEMENTS = {
-    "the invitation to propose": ("propose", "proposal"),
-    "the operator's approval": ("approve", "approval", "says yes", "a yes"),
-    "the rule's intent": ("intent", "what it changes about how work"),
-    "why it is being proposed now": (
-        "why now", "arose_from_id", "the incident", "prompted it",
-    ),
-    "how it would be enforced": ("enforc",),
-    "the answers offered back": ("as written", "talk about it", "discuss"),
-}
-
-
-@pytest.mark.parametrize(("module", "name"), _SURFACES)
-@pytest.mark.parametrize("element", sorted(_ELEMENTS))
-def test_a_rule_surface_carries_every_part_of_the_proposal_loop(
-    module, name, element
-):
-    """Each element of propose → state four things → ask survives."""
-    doc = _doc(module, name).lower()
-    assert any(token in doc for token in _ELEMENTS[element]), (
-        f"{name}'s docstring no longer mentions {element}. A caller reads "
-        f"this immediately before writing a rule that will bind every future "
-        f"session, and the proposal is the one moment that rule is certain to "
-        f"be seen by the operator. Say it in whatever words you like; this "
-        f"guard only checks it is still said. See create_rule's opening."
-    )
-
-
-@pytest.mark.parametrize(("module", "name"), _SURFACES)
-def test_the_proposal_loop_comes_before_the_parameter_contract(module, name):
-    """It has to be read to work, and the Args: block is where reading stops.
-
-    A caller who has decided to make the call skims down to the parameters.
-    Guidance parked below them — or folded into one argument's description —
-    arrives after the decision it was meant to inform, which is the same as
-    not being there.
-    """
-    doc = _doc(module, name).lower()
-    args_at = doc.find("args:")
-    assert args_at > 0, f"{name}'s docstring has no Args: block"
-    loop_at = min(
-        (doc.find(t) for t in _ELEMENTS["the invitation to propose"]
-         if doc.find(t) >= 0),
-        default=-1,
-    )
-    assert 0 <= loop_at < args_at, (
-        f"{name} introduces the proposal loop at or after its Args: block "
-        f"(loop {loop_at}, args {args_at}). Move it to the opening — a "
-        f"caller who has already decided to write the rule reads the "
-        f"parameters, not the prose under them."
-    )

tests/test_rule_usage_wiring.py

@@ -160,15 +160,7 @@ async def test_the_arm_searches_on_its_OWN_bar_not_the_code_one():
     kw = search.await_args.kwargs
     assert kw["threshold"] == 0.81, "the arm is still using the code threshold"
     assert kw["limit"] == pc.RULEHINT_LIMIT
-    # NO tier filter (#3702). The arms search every rule the caller owns,
-    # because "already in the session" is not the same as "in front of the
-    # reader at the moment it applies" — and relevance is the threshold's
-    # job, not a category's. If this assertion is failing because a tier
-    # argument came back, read the block above RULEHINT_LIMIT first: the
-    # filter may legitimately return, but only carrying a measured reason.
-    assert "tier" not in kw or kw["tier"] is None, (
-        "the arm is filtering the rule corpus by tier again"
-    )
+    assert kw["tier"] == "conditional"
 
 
 @pytest.mark.asyncio

tests/test_services_retrieval_telemetry.py

@@ -638,156 +638,3 @@ async def test_ambient_alone_reports_no_ratio(_dispose_engine):
         assert ru["pull_through"] is None
     finally:
         await cleanup()
-
-
-# ── Window coverage (#3712) ────────────────────────────────────────────
-#
-# A counter added last week, read over a 30-day window, reports a real count
-# against an imagined denominator. The result is a plausible FRACTION rather
-# than an obvious zero, which is what makes it dangerous — #379 spent five
-# planned steps on a defect that turned out to be a window opening before the
-# recording it was measuring existed.
-
-
-def test_coverage_says_nothing_rather_than_false_when_nothing_was_recorded():
-    """Null, never False. "No measurement" is not "partial measurement".
-
-    The same distinction `suppression`'s null carries (#3497): absent must not
-    read as a verdict. A False here would assert the window is under-covered,
-    which is a claim nobody is in a position to make.
-    """
-    from datetime import datetime, timezone
-
-    from scribe.services.retrieval_telemetry import _coverage
-
-    since = datetime(2026, 9, 1, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
-    assert _coverage(None, since) == {
-        "complete_from": None, "covers_window": None,
-    }
-
-
-def test_coverage_reads_a_start_before_the_window_as_covered():
-    from datetime import datetime, timezone
-
-    from scribe.services.retrieval_telemetry import _coverage
-
-    since = datetime(2026, 9, 1, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
-    older = datetime(2026, 8, 1, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
-    newer = datetime(2026, 9, 5, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
-
-    assert _coverage(older, since)["covers_window"] is True
-    assert _coverage(newer, since)["covers_window"] is False, (
-        "a counter that started inside the window covers only part of it"
-    )
-    assert _coverage(newer, since)["complete_from"] == newer.isoformat()
-
-
-@pytest.mark.integration
-@pytest.mark.asyncio
-async def test_coverage_is_per_source_because_the_table_is_older_than_its_arms(
-    _dispose_engine,
-):
-    """THE grain question, and the reason a per-table answer is useless.
-
-    `retrieval_logs` accumulates for months. A table-level "earliest row"
-    therefore says months for every source it holds — including one added
-    days ago whose counter means something quite different. The old source
-    would vouch for the young one, which is exactly the reading this exists
-    to prevent.
-    """
-    from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
-
-    from sqlalchemy import delete
-
-    from scribe.models import async_session
-    from scribe.models.retrieval_log import RetrievalLog
-    from scribe.services.retrieval_telemetry import retrieval_summary
-
-    UID = 990077
-    now = datetime.now(timezone.utc)
-    async with async_session() as s:
-        # An old surface, recording since well before any window we ask for,
-        # AND still recording inside it. Both rows are needed: `complete_from`
-        # comes from the all-time query, but a source only gets a bucket at all
-        # if it has rows in the window, so the 90-day row alone would leave
-        # nothing to assert on.
-        s.add(RetrievalLog(
-            user_id=UID, source="auto_inject", result_count=1,
-            created_at=now - timedelta(days=90),
-        ))
-        s.add(RetrievalLog(
-            user_id=UID, source="auto_inject", result_count=1,
-            created_at=now - timedelta(days=1),
-        ))
-        # A young arm, first written INSIDE the window below.
-        s.add(RetrievalLog(
-            user_id=UID, source="pre_tool_rule", result_count=1,
-            created_at=now - timedelta(days=2),
-        ))
-        await s.commit()
-
-    try:
-        out = await retrieval_summary(UID, days=30)
-
-        assert out["sources"]["auto_inject"]["covers_window"] is True
-        assert out["sources"]["pre_tool_rule"]["covers_window"] is False, (
-            "the young arm was reported as covering a 30-day window — the "
-            "table's age has been allowed to vouch for one of its sources"
-        )
-    finally:
-        async with async_session() as s:
-            await s.execute(delete(RetrievalLog).where(RetrievalLog.user_id == UID))
-            await s.commit()
-
-
-@pytest.mark.integration
-@pytest.mark.asyncio
-async def test_a_section_is_complete_only_from_its_latest_contributor(
-    _dispose_engine,
-):
-    """A sum is complete once EVERY contributor was being written — so the
-    section takes the LATEST first-row, not the earliest.
-
-    Taking the earliest would be worse than reporting nothing: it would pick
-    the oldest source in the table and use it to certify a total that a
-    newer source is still only partly contributing to. That is the original
-    error in miniature.
-    """
-    from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
-
-    from sqlalchemy import delete
-
-    from scribe.models import async_session
-    from scribe.models.rule_usage import RuleUsageEvent
-    from scribe.services.retrieval_telemetry import retrieval_summary
-
-    UID = 990078
-    now = datetime.now(timezone.utc)
-    old = now - timedelta(days=90)
-    young = now - timedelta(days=2)
-    async with async_session() as s:
-        s.add_all([
-            RuleUsageEvent(
-                user_id=UID, rule_id=1, event="surfaced",
-                source="list_always_on_rules", created_at=old,
-            ),
-            RuleUsageEvent(
-                user_id=UID, rule_id=2, event="surfaced",
-                source="pre_tool_rule", created_at=young,
-            ),
-        ])
-        await s.commit()
-
-    try:
-        out = await retrieval_summary(UID, days=30)
-        ru = out["rule_usage"]
-
-        assert ru["complete_from"] == young.isoformat(), (
-            "the section reported completeness from its OLDEST source; a "
-            "total is only as complete as its newest contributor"
-        )
-        assert ru["covers_window"] is False
-    finally:
-        async with async_session() as s:
-            await s.execute(delete(RuleUsageEvent).where(RuleUsageEvent.user_id == UID))
-            await s.commit()