igneum/docs/plans/consequences-decisions.md

Consequence decisions for the project lead (night of 5 October 2026)

Sibling of ledger-decisions.md. Each is a consequence of a measured number that needs the project lead: money, a public claim, or a consensus parameter outside tonight's delegation. The row number points at consequences-2026-10-05.md. Recommendation first, then the options.

The ten in one glance (what the project lead does, in the order they bite)

#	By when	One line	What the project lead does
D1	16:00 UTC, 6 October	The fee switch at H = 210,000 (about 19:50 UTC) darkens every 0.3.10 prover; 0.3.11 must be on every prover first, else H moves	Nothing if the morning check passes; the coordinator holds it. Know it exists
D9	this week	No 12 GB card exists here; every 12 GB number is scaled from the 5090	Confirm whether the 3060 and 5060 Ti 16 GB that evidence.md says are on order are real; if not, buy one 12 GB card (about £250 to £400)
D2	before the next site push	The litepaper's "12 GB proves" is false on this build; three drafts of the replacement exist (proving-v1 440fd59, ca2-coord 1c8439f, proving-methods.md section 5)	Pick one; the proving-methods paragraph is recommended
D8	the same push	"The card mines and proves" and "a visible 1% software fee" are solo-NVIDIA sentences now	Approve the qualified wording
D3, D7	the same push	"Any 4 GB card", "4 GB about four years, 8 GB more than a decade", "4B hard cap" against the lifetime table and the 3.96 billion ever minted	Approve the re-cut sentences
D4	gate 1 (before the testnet genesis)	Dataset growth mapping: (b) power-of-two steps (years 4, 12, 28, 60) keeps the public sentences true; (a) fades cards one year at a time	Choose; (b) recommended with the step calendar published
D5	before the next site push	The chip claim: mixer x8 measured at 0.92x with the 3x factor, "under 2x" holds with margin on the stated convention	Confirm the claim stays, with the convention named
D6	Counter ASIC 3.0	AMD mines at a seventh of a 5090 and 4.9x the electricity per hash; no read width closes it	Accept for v3; the miners page says so
D11	before the next site push	The hero, the abstract and the level 1 copy now say "the model and the bounty are public" / "bounty standing"; funding.md prices the chip bounty at USD 50,000, marks it NOT FUNDED, and its rule 3 says a bounty is announced only when escrowed	Strike "and the bounty" from the hero and the abstract until the USD 50,000 is escrowed, or escrow it; the litepaper's older "a bounty is attached" (finality, line 686) is the same question
D10	after route A's rows and D9's card	Proving route: route A (re-sized SP1 server) now; RISC Zero as a second proof family (Apple, and the fallback) is a consensus and verifier change	Measure both; adopt a second family only on your say

#	Row	What needs deciding	Recommendation	Why
D1	C1	The fee switch lands at H = 210,000 about 19:50Z on 6 October, and the 0.3.10 node's export does not carry the switch, so every app prover's shards are refused or vetoed from H. Move H, or race 0.3.11 onto every prover first	If 0.3.11 (with the proving-v1 fork, whose export carries daaScore and feesV1ActivationDaa) is not on every prover by 16:00Z on 6 October, republish the override with H = tip + 86,400 rounded to the next thousand, re-read the digest on a scratch node, every node in one sweep (the fee-switch plan's own rule for a later H). The coordinator holds the devnet delegation; this note is so the morning does not find proving dark	A dark proving pool on the devnet costs nothing on chain (the escrow keeps it) but every coverage, latency and fleet number measured after H is void
D2	C3	The litepaper says "12 GB or more proves full shards"; the only measurement puts the prover alone at 13.8 GB on a 32 GB card	The sweep and the S_p curve are in (proving agent, 5 October late): no knob moves the floor; 12 GB proves nothing on SP1 6.8.1, 16 GB proves only empty shards alone, 24 GB proves the adopted 30,000-pgas shard (20.4 GB alone, about 22 GB beside the miner), 32 GB proves everything. Change the sentence to "24 GB or more proves; 32 GB proves and mines on one card" and evidence row 16 to tested-by-the-team on those rows; the 12 GB figure returns only if a smaller GPU server or a smaller shard measures under 12 GB. The proving agent has drafted the two replacement sentences on its branch (app 440fd59, litepaper and evidence rows 15 and 16); nothing is pushed, so the project lead approves or rewrites the draft rather than starting from the measurement. Two drafts exist: the proving agent's litepaper sentences (proving-v1 440fd59) and the coordinator's site, litepaper and miner-page line (ca2-coord 1c8439f); the integrator keeps one. One marker is owed on either: the 24 GB figure is the 5090's allocation pattern on a 32 GB card (22.2 GB beside the miner), not a measurement on a 24 GB card, and evidence rule 3 wants that said until a 4090 or a 5080-class 24 GB card runs it	A public number that the first 3060 owner disproves is the FUD the ledger exists to prevent
D3	C8, C13	The homepage says "Any 4 GB card" and the litepaper says a 4 GB card mines for about four years and an 8 GB card for more than a decade; the tile says "4B hard cap" while the rule mints about 3.96 billion	Replace with the lifetime table's numbers once the sub-agent lands it: "4 GB cards mine at launch; 8 GB for about six years; 12 GB for about fourteen; the dataset grows half a gigabyte a year" and "cap 4 billion, about 3.96 billion ever minted"	The schedule is public and the arithmetic is one line; a reader will do it
D4	C9, C8	Index mapping at gate 1, now with the lifetime table (docs/analysis/card-lifetime-2026-10-05.md): (a) multiply-shift, continuous growth: 4 GB cards out at 1.0 to 1.5 years, 8 GB at 6.3 to 7.5, 12 GB at 12 to 13.5, Apple 8 GB at 2.6 to 3.4; (b) power-of-two steps at years 4, 12, 28, 60: 4 GB to year 4, 8 GB to year 12, 12 GB to year 28 (the cache freed after the build, decided by the coordinator at 22:50), each tier ending on a step day	(b), with the step calendar published on the miners page from day one (the years 4, 12, 28 and 60 named beside the tiers), and the 1 GiB vectors kept. Revised from (a) at 23:0x: the table shows (b) is the only mapping under which the litepaper's "4 GB about four years, 8 GB more than a decade" holds, and a step day known twelve years ahead is a schedule, not an event; the coordinator recommends the same	Under (a) both public sentences are wrong today by 2.5 to 5 years; under (b) they hold and the cliffs are dated
D5	C10	The site's "under 2x" chip claim: the scratch layer leaves the on-die-cache recompute chip at 2.4x at every share; the mixer multiplier x2 brings it to 1.2x at twice the CPU verify cost (about 0.9 ms per warp, half the pool members per core)	Overtaken by the coordinator's delegated decisions (21:50 to 21:28 Mac clock): the public claim was qualified, the mixer x4 is in class v3 (chip row 0.61x bare, 1.84x with a 3x fixed-function factor, 1.53x at equal silicon with the mirror deducted: "under 2x" holds on the equal-silicon convention and is thin), and x8 is built and measured beside it (0.92x with the factor, from the M16 table); x8 goes in if the verify stays under 10 ms and the daily build under 1 s on every card we own (C23 asks that the iGPU tier be named in that rule). Measured at 21:40 UTC (ca2-mixer 54bbfcc): x8 is 2.1x the v2 verifier (2.79 ms per warp on a loaded core, 1.26 quiet by scaling), 7.1 ms of the 10 ms gate left, the Mac 1 GiB build flat at 21 ms; the verify half of the x8 rule passes, the PC build rows are owed. Then at 22:06 UTC x8 was decided into v3 on the PC build rows (latency-bound on every card): the chip row reads 0.92x with the 3x fixed-function factor, so "under 2x" holds with margin and the level 3 page can state the convention and the margin. For the project lead: confirm "under 2x" stays, now with the measured row behind it	The claim is the project's first public sentence on chips; it is either true by a measured lever or it is marked
D6	C11	Whether class v3 should favour AMD (fewer, wider loads per hash) at a cost to the 5090's latency-bound share, or accept that AMD cards mine at about a seventh of a 5090 and 4.5x the electricity per hash	Accept it for v3 and say so on the miners page ("NVIDIA first; AMD mines at a lower rate per watt on this class"); open the AMD question as a Counter ASIC 3.0 item with its own measurement	Tonight's rule was the project lead's and the 5090 margin is the anti-chip argument; AMD's position is a public-copy question, not a gate
D7	C13	Same as D3's supply wording	with D3
D8	C7	The miner page says "One click: install, start, the card mines and proves" (site/miner.html 7, 13, 21; site/index.html 484). On HiveOS and the rig installer a rig mines only until a Linux prover build is published, and on the app a 12 GB card mines only, a 16 GB card proves with the miner paused, 20 GB and up does both (the sweep of 5 October, before the v1-shard row)	Qualify the sentence on the miner page and the homepage card: "the card mines; 24 GB cards prove too, 32 GB does both at once; rigs mine until the Linux prover ships". The same page's "a visible 1% software fee you can switch off" becomes "solo mining carries a 1% software fee you can switch off; in a pool the pool's own fee is the only one" once pool-v0 ships (the pool agent fixed the rule: no software dev fee in pool mode)	The sentence is the product's first promise and tonight's measurement bounds it by card
D9	C3, C15, C26	No 12 GB NVIDIA card exists in the fleet, so every 12 GB number tonight is scaled from the 5090 and labelled approximate. The 13.9 GB floor is SP1's GPU server code (docs/analysis/proving-methods.md, branch proving-methods e7e0db7, section 1.3: builder.rs adds 4 GB to the card's physical memory and panics under 24, so a 16 GB card (16 + 4 = 20) and a 12 GB card never start and 20 GB is the smallest that does; the trace is allocated at the maximum shard; the CUDA mempool never releases; the proving plan's "under 24" (4c82e56) is the same test read before the addition). The prover-floor patch and the per-card profiles cannot be measured without the hardware	Buy one 12 GB NVIDIA card this week for PC 1's spare slot (an RTX 3060 12 GB or 4070 12 GB, about £250 to £400, approximate; the coordinator's request). Check first whether the RTX 3060 and the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB that evidence.md row 16 says are "on order" are real and arriving; if so, no purchase, only the delivery date. No public line says "12 GB proves" before a real 12 GB card runs the rebuilt server on the S_p-curve fixtures and recipe	Money, and the one measurement every 12 GB claim rests on; the prover-floor agent's rows tonight replace the approximate figures when they land
D10	C3, C15, C26, C28	The proving route for the 12 GB tier and for Apple: docs/analysis/proving-methods.md section 4 ranks (1) route A, a re-sized SP1 GPU server with S_p as the dial and one server per card on rigs, nothing in consensus moving; (2) route D, RISC Zero 3.0.x as proof-system version 2 (the only shipped prover with a documented sub-12 GB configuration and a Metal path), the fallback if A misses 11 GB and the Apple route either way, 3 to 4 days plus a 3-month two-verifier overlap and three spec 7.8 rules; (3) a sumcheck family without a codeword (Jolt-class) in years, not now. Route A is already running tonight; route D adds a second proof family to the node, which is a consensus and verifier change outside tonight's delegation	Route A on the prover-floor rows, gated as the document says (the adopted shard under 11 GB alone and under 60 s prove-only on a real 12 GB card, D9); route D's measurement (RISC Zero at po2 19 and 20 on PC 2 and the Mac's Metal row) may run as a measurement, but adopting a second proof family waits for the project lead and for route A's result; the public paragraph of section 5 ("Proving runs on NVIDIA cards with 24 GB or more today. A build for 12 GB and 16 GB cards is being measured ...") is the honest line meanwhile and is the one of the three drafts to prefer, because it names what is being measured instead of a tier	A second verifier in the node is the kind of change the testnet's genesis must carry from day one; measuring it costs nothing, adopting it is the project lead's
D11	C29 context; docs/plans/funding.md 36 and 63	The chip bounty on the public pages: "the model and the bounty are public" (hero, abstract, ca2-coord cabec3b), "bounty standing" (level 1 copy); funding.md: USD 50,000 standing, "Not funded", "a bounty is announced only when it is escrowed"; the litepaper already says "a bounty is attached" to the finality review (line 686)	Strike "and the bounty" from the hero and the abstract and "standing" from level 1 until the money is escrowed, and say "a bounty follows the external review" if a sentence is wanted; or escrow USD 50,000 (and the USD 25,000 finality bounty) and keep the words. The coordinator is told to hold the words at the ship pending this	A public promise of money the project has not set aside is the FUD the ledger exists to prevent, by the project's own funding rule