docs/ befuellt - Stack-Hintergrund fuer vier Themen, Pflegeklausel in AGENTS.md ergaenzt (4.3.1, #45)

Files changed:
- AGENTS.md
- CHANGES.md
- VERSION
- docs/ownership-and-templates.md
- docs/pipeline-rationale.md
- docs/version-model.md
- docs/why-gates-are-code.md

docs/why-gates-are-code.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Why gates are code
+
+Chemenu has three hard limits - the Mass-Update Gate, the Publish-Remote Gate, and the
+Iteration Budget Gate - and all three live inside `tools/wikitool`, not in a paragraph of
+instructions an agent reads and follows. The rules themselves, and what to do when one trips,
+are in [AGENTS.md § Gates](../AGENTS.md#gates) and [instructions/gates.md](../instructions/gates.md).
+This page is only about the design choice underneath them: why code, and why these three
+mechanisms in particular.
+
+## A suggestion an agent can talk itself past
+
+An instruction like "don't publish too much at once" or "don't loop forever" lives in the same
+place as every other piece of guidance a session is holding - alongside the task, the user's
+last message, and whatever context made the moment feel urgent. Under pressure, or with a
+plausible-sounding reason ("this batch is different, it's mechanical"), that guidance can be
+reasoned around without anyone deciding to break a rule. Nothing enforces it; it just competes
+for attention with everything else in the context window, and sometimes loses.
+
+A check compiled into the tool doesn't have that problem, because it isn't part of the
+conversation at all. It runs before the command dispatches, regardless of how convincing the
+case for skipping it seemed a moment earlier. The difference isn't that code is smarter than a
+well-written instruction - it's that code doesn't get talked into anything.
+
+## Why three different mechanisms, not one
+
+The three gates ask three different questions, and each one's shape follows from what kind of
+question it is.
+
+The Mass-Update Gate asks *is this change too large to publish unreviewed* - a judgment that
+varies changeset by changeset, so it clears with a `--confirm` token tied to the specific
+output the user just read. Approval is scoped to that one publish.
+
+The Publish-Remote Gate asks something underneath that: *is this even the right repository*.
+That's not a per-push judgment, it's a standing property of the checkout - true or false for
+every publish that checkout will ever attempt, not just this one. A confirm token would let an
+agent clear it once and then treat the answer as settled, which is exactly backwards for a
+question whose answer shouldn't move at all mid-session. The only way past it is the user
+editing `.wikitool-remotes.json` directly, outside the gate's own flow.
+
+The Iteration Budget Gate asks a third kind of question - not "is this instance correct" but
+"has this session stopped making progress." That's read from the shape of the call history
+itself (call count, repeated identical calls), not from anything about the content of any one
+call.
+
+## Numbers that come from measurement, not intuition
+
+The iteration ceiling didn't start where it sits now. It used to run 15-25, borrowed from a
+general rule of thumb, until four real ingest runs measured 24, 26, 29 and 30 calls apiece -
+every one of them an ordinary workflow doing nothing wrong, and every one of them at or past
+where the old ceiling would have refused it. A limit that the normal case keeps tripping stops
+functioning as a limit; it becomes background noise a session learns to route `--override-budget`
+around as a matter of course, and the whole point of a hard-coded check is that it isn't supposed
+to feel routine.
+
+That's the deeper reason these numbers live in a tool rather than in prose: prose is read once
+and remembered loosely, but a threshold enforced every call is tested by every call, and a
+threshold that fails its own test gets noticed and re-measured rather than quietly ignored.