# Run Record

**Run ID:** C1-selected-001
**Date:** 2026-03-25
**Evaluator:** Claude
**Kata ID:** C1-capability-growth-boundary
**Family:** Architecture & leverage
**Model:** GPT-5.4 Pro
**Temperature / settings:** default
**Fresh session:** yes

## Arm

- selected-skills

## Skills Loaded

- design
- architecture-evolution
- process-economics

## Governing Skills Hypothesis

1. design — should force a named incoherence, explicit constraints, alternatives, leverage, migration
2. architecture-evolution — should force a challenged-assumption statement and a boundary move rather than a local patch
3. process-economics — should price the process/complexity cost of the extension architecture vs core accretion

## Cost

- prompt tokens: 7,400
- completion tokens: 1,950
- latency: 37s
- rounds: 1
- extra artifacts created: none

## Outcome

- pass

## Scores

- α: 4
- β: 4
- γ: 4
- efficiency: 3

## Failure Classification

- skill-effective

## Notes

- Agent explicitly named the challenged assumption:
  - "All capability growth belongs in trusted core."
- Agent compared three real boundary moves:
  1. hardcode in core
  2. native plugin loading only
  3. runtime extension architecture (selected)
- Agent explicitly separated:
  - runtime extensions
  - registry/marketplace layer
  - bundle/app composition layer
- Agent named leverage:
  - future capability families become additive
  - core remains minimal
- Agent named negative leverage:
  - manifests, registry, doctor, traceability complexity increase
- Agent gave a phased migration:
  - manifest + registry + subprocess host
  - Runtime Contract / doctor / traceability
  - later registry/app ecosystem
- Process economics were explicit:
  - more system complexity now
  - less repeated core accretion later
