Retire the last nine cadence claims, and say the gap got worse

.plans/delivery-plan.md

@@ -1291,13 +1291,16 @@ docs-only, +MCP and +skills. Both halves changed: the arms became `+skills` and
 `-no-skills` — the MCP server is read-only and ships in the CLI, so an MCP arm could
 only ever have moved investigate and resolve — and the suite grew.
 
-What the schedule actually runs, as of 28 August:
+What the schedule ran, 31 August to 28 September, before the benchmark came off it:
 
 | | Experiments | Pairs | Attempts |
 |---|---|---|---|
 | Weekly | 4 (frontier agents, plus the weak pair) | 4 x 19 = **76** | `runs=1` |
 | Monthly | 6 (adds the `-no-skills` twins) | 6 x 19 = **114** | `runs=1` |
 
+Since 1 October the schedule runs the regression suite only, 3 x 6 = 18 pairs at two
+attempts, and a benchmark matrix is dispatched against a bucket of work.
+
 **The per-pair cost has not been re-measured since the suite grew**, and the two
 figures in this file disagree: the ten-scenario re-baseline above puts the mean at
 $1.44, while the most recent costing — a three-attempt matrix over nineteen scenarios
@@ -1361,8 +1364,8 @@ start earning from day one.
 
 | Trigger | Runs | Why |
 |---|---|---|
-| `schedule`, weekly | benchmark suite, frontier agents + weak pair | Published scores, and the weak pair is the only source of failures |
-| `schedule`, monthly | benchmark suite, full matrix | Adds the `-no-skills` twins, whose delta does not move week to week |
+| `schedule`, weekly | **regression suite, every experiment** | Catches a guarded mistake returning, and opens an issue when it does |
+| `workflow_dispatch`, against a bucket of work | benchmark suite, the experiments that bucket needs | An eval change or a product change, measured by the run that follows it |
 | `repository_dispatch` from the docs repo, and PRs touching `skills/` | regression suite only | Cheap, catches hallucination regressions |
 | PR label `run-evals-changed` | only the scenarios changed in the PR | Scenario authoring loop |
 | `workflow_dispatch` | anything, by suite/eval/experiment | New model releases, one-offs |
@@ -1373,8 +1376,9 @@ pair. Lift it, change the schedule block and the suite defaults, and add the sha
 loop from Phase 1 until the org key lands.
 
 **Where this stands today.** Pull requests run formatting, typecheck, unit tests and
-build. `eval-refresh` runs on two schedules, weekly for the frontier agents plus the
-weak pair and monthly for the full matrix, and on manual dispatch. Lifting the file
+build. `eval-refresh` runs the regression suite weekly and nothing else on a schedule;
+the benchmark is dispatched against a bucket of work. That changed on 1 October 2026 —
+see Runs in AGENTS.md. Lifting the file
 wholesale turned out to carry more than the schedule: it arrived live on
 supabase/evals' nightly cron and fired against a half-built suite, and its matrix ran
 pairs concurrently, which one shared project cannot support. It is now

.plans/evals-page-brief.md

@@ -32,11 +32,12 @@ several experiments, and one is capability-gated behind Outpost credentials so i
 deliberately reports a skip. "Not run" is a normal state here, not an edge case, and
 it has to read as distinct from a failure.
 
-**Cells in the same grid are not the same age.** Frontier agents and the weak pair run
-weekly; the `-no-skills` twins run monthly, because their measured delta is what got
-cut to fit the budget. Half the columns can therefore be up to four weeks staler than
-the other half. One "last updated" stamp for the table would be a false claim.
-Freshness is per experiment.
+**Cells in the same grid are not the same age, and nothing bounds the gap.** The
+benchmark stopped running on a schedule on 1 October 2026: a run is dispatched against
+a piece of work, so a column is as old as the last run that covered it. Until then the
+frontier agents and the weak pair ran weekly and the `-no-skills` twins monthly, which
+capped the gap at four weeks. There is no cap now. One "last updated" stamp for the
+table would be a false claim; freshness is per experiment.
 
 ## The experiments, and what the pairing actually showed
 

apps/framework/harness/run-eval.ts

@@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ async function main() {
             eval: ev.id,
             // When this run finished. Recorded per run rather than per
             // refresh, because the published grid is not one snapshot: the
-            // `-no-skills` twins refresh monthly and everything else weekly,
+            // a dispatched run covers only the experiments it asked for,
             // and a targeted re-run replaces some pairs and leaves the rest,
             // so two cells side by side can be a month apart. Without this
             // the page can only describe the schedule, which is not the same

apps/framework/lib/provenance.ts

@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ import {
  * from a current one.
  *
  * `export-results --merge` carries forward any cell a run did not re-execute.
- * That earns its place — the `-no-skills` twins refresh monthly and everything
- * else weekly, so without it a weekly snapshot would have holes. What it lacks
+ * That earns its place — a dispatched run covers the experiments that run asked
+ * for, so without it a partial run's snapshot would have holes. What it lacks
  * is any notion of a row going *out of date*. On 25 August the published file
  * held 114 rows across six execution dates spanning thirteen days, 22 of them
  * from 13 August: measured before the sandbox CLI moved to 2.5.0, before fixed

apps/framework/scripts/export-results.ts

@@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ const MERGE = rawArgs.includes('--merge');
  *
  * Opt-in, because a snapshot with holes and a snapshot with silent thirteen-day-
  * old rows are both wrong and which is less wrong depends on what the snapshot
- * is for. A release cut to report a measured change wants this on; a weekly
- * refresh keeping the page populated probably does not. Without it the report
+ * is for. A release cut to report a measured change wants this on; a partial
+ * run keeping the page populated probably does not. Without it the report
  * below still prints, so the staleness is visible either way — which is the
  * actual defect in #60. Nothing was ever *said*.
  */

reference/design-tokens.md

@@ -127,7 +127,9 @@ because a flat delta honestly reported is worth more than an implied one, but do
 build the hierarchy around it. The spread that carries signal is model capability: the
 frontier agents pass nearly everything and a deliberately weaker model fails several.
 
-**Cells in one grid are not the same age.** Frontier agents and the weak pair run
-weekly; the `-no-skills` twins run monthly. A single "last updated" stamp for the table
-would be wrong by up to four weeks on half the columns. Freshness is per experiment.
-The design has no treatment for this because the cadence was set after it was drawn.
+**Cells in one grid are not the same age, and since 1 October 2026 there is no bound
+on how far apart they can be.** The benchmark came off the schedule, so cells are
+measured when a run is dispatched against a piece of work. A single "last updated"
+stamp for the table would be a false claim; freshness is per experiment. This used to
+be "up to four weeks" — a weekly against a monthly — and that ceiling is gone, which
+makes the gap worse rather than resolved. The design has no treatment for it.