<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Decision Trace on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</title>
    <link>http://programmer.ie/tags/decision-trace/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Decision Trace on Programmer.ie: Modern AI programming</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 05:00:22 +0100</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="http://programmer.ie/tags/decision-trace/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Assemble for the Task</title>
      <link>http://programmer.ie/books/context/22-chapter/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2026 05:00:22 +0100</pubDate>
      <guid>http://programmer.ie/books/context/22-chapter/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The usable input budget is 4,000 tokens. The non-negotiable pile reads: mandatory instructions 1,100, exact constraints 1,400, required tool schema 900, minimum task evidence 1,200. The total is 4,600 against a 4,000-token ceiling, and no ranking, weighting, or cleverness changes the arithmetic. A relevance packer would silently delete 400 tokens of whichever item scored lowest — perhaps the second half of the exact-constraint block, perhaps the tool schema&amp;rsquo;s required parameters — and emit a plausible, policy-violating bundle whose failure surfaces three turns later as an invalid call or a guessed identifier. The correct output of this computation is not a bundle at all. It is a failure notice naming the 600-token excess — because deleting exact constraints to fit a budget is not optimisation. It is fabrication with good formatting. Everything is eligible; nothing is assembled; and the first question is whether assembly is even possible.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
