principle-explain-the-number

# Explain the Number - **Ask "why not double?"** Name the resource or code path that bounds the result, such as a core, a lock, the disk, the network, or the load generator itself. Get it from a profile or from system counters taken during a run, then map it to source. A guess from reading the code is not a limiter. If you cannot say why the number is not twice as good, you do not know what you measured. - **List what else the number could be measuring, and rule out each one with evidence.** The usual suspects are errors, skipped or cached work, code that never ran, an untuned side (one left on default settings), noise, and a piece too small to matter end to end. - **Keep the evidence with the number.** Put the run count, the spread, and the limiter in the notes or a linked artifact. For a performance number, run the full procedure with the [benchmark-checklist](../benchmark-checklist/SKILL.md) skill. For an eval result, ask the same of the trials: did every run do the task, does the gap hold across trials and models, and does the scenario matter. You skipped this when the evidence behind a number has no run count, no spread, or no named limiter, or when the time saved is larger than the time the changed piece took. Distinct from [Prove It Works](../principle-prove-it-works/SKILL.md), which checks that an output is real.