---
cycle: 362
issue: "https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/362"
role: beta
manifest:
  planned: [Review Summary, Implementation Assessment, Technical Review, Process Observations, Release Notes]
  completed: [Review Summary, Implementation Assessment, Technical Review, Process Observations, Release Notes]
---

# β Close-out — #362

## Review Summary

One round. APPROVED at R1, no findings.

- Base SHA (origin/main at intake): `cfe143f7`
- Review SHA (cycle/362 HEAD at verdict): `b1b8fd07`
- Verdict commit: `d124c8cf`
- Merge commit on main: `1b92ccbf` (`Merge cycle/362: UIE communication gate (Closes #362)`)

Pre-merge gate: 4/4 rows passed (identity truth, canonical-skill freshness, non-destructive merge-test in throwaway worktree, γ-artifact completeness). The merge-test worktree was set up at `/tmp/cnos-merge-362/wt` with worktree-local config and torn down before merge.

Issue ACs (3/3): all met with §1.5 textual evidence quoted in `beta-review.md` §2.0 AC Coverage. Doc updates limited to the one named file (`src/packages/cnos.core/skills/agent/cap/SKILL.md`). CDD artifacts complete (gamma-scaffold present, self-coherence complete with manifest closure). Active-skill consistency (`cnos.core/skills/write/SKILL.md`) verified by spot-check on the patched §1.5 prose (lead-with-point, contrastive-examples, positive-frame).

## Implementation Assessment

α executed a minimum-diff skill patch with sharp scope discipline:

- 16-line addition to one file (`cap/SKILL.md` §1.5), zero changes elsewhere
- §1.5 numbering continues cleanly from §1.4; `---` separator preserved
- Four ❌/✅ contrastive pairs cover the canonical question case (`"what is the dispatch protocol?"`) and the ambiguous case (`"is this configured correctly?"`)
- Failure-mode paragraph is named positively (`invisible understanding that skips to action`) rather than as a "don't" rule — `write/SKILL.md` §3.1 applied correctly
- α's self-coherence executed the full 7-section manifest with incremental commits per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.5; review-readiness signal addressed all 14 gate rows

The adjacent observation α surfaced in §Debt — §1.5 placement at the end of §1 rather than the top, with the rule text saying "Before anything else in Understand" — was correctly reasoned through and accepted. The text states the practice order; the file section order is the discovery order. Renumbering §1.1–§1.4 would have produced a larger diff for marginal semantic gain.

α's peer enumeration (§Self-check) was thorough: adjacent agent skills (`reflect`, `coherent`, `CLP`) considered and ruled out as duplicating the input-classification rule; lifecycle skills considered and ruled out as not consuming the UIE contract operationally. β re-grepped the relevant peer surfaces and concurred — no sibling updates required.

## Technical Review

**Architecture leverage (A–G).** All seven check axes passed in §2.2 of the review:
- Reuses existing surface (extends §1 Understand)
- Smallest closure that names the gate
- Right load tier (global agent scope, where the rule belongs)
- Authority surface clear (`cap/SKILL.md` is canonical for the Coherent Agent Principle)
- Failure mode explicitly named
- Contrastive examples ground the rule in observable cases
- No design-skill load required

**Honest-claim verification (3.13 a–d).** Reproducibility and wiring claims are n/a (no measurements or wiring assertions in the patch). Source-of-truth alignment ✓ (terms trace to existing definitions). Gap-claim ✓ (β re-verified α's grep that no prior question-handling rule exists; γ scaffold also pre-verified).

**Failure mode the rule prevents.** *Invisible understanding that skips to action.* The agent reads the situation, forms a model internally, executes immediately — the operator's first chance to correct a misreading is after the action has already run. The rule makes the U step observable when the input is a question, by making the answer the U step's terminal output. This addresses a class of conduct failures the issue reports as observed 5+ times in a single δ-session (tsc #49 wave close-out + cnos #359-361 wave).

## Process Observations

**Rule 3.10 interaction with inherited CI red.** The Build workflow was red on review SHA `b1b8fd07` and identically red on origin/main `cfe143f7`. The two failing jobs ("Repo link validation (I4)" and "CDD artifact ledger validation (I6)") were both failing on main itself, in surfaces outside cycle/362's diff (lychee external-link rot; legacy pre-v3.65.0 cycle close-outs for issues #321, #149, #297). The I6 validator's per-issue breakdown reported cycle/362's own artifacts as passing (`✅ self-coherence.md (small-change #362)`).

Rule 3.10 ("CI-green gate") fires literally on red CI at review SHA. Rule 3.5 ("no phantom blockers") instructs β not to block on incoherence the cycle does not introduce. The conflict resolves on precedent: β-360 §Findings F1 dismissed an analogous inherited Build failure as phantom-blocker under rule 3.5 (cited in §CI status of `beta-review.md`). β applied the same disposition here. The verdict's §CI status section documents the inherited-not-introduced determination with the failing jobs cited at the per-job level, and recommends to γ (process-axis, non-blocking) that a clarifying clause be added to rule 3.10 — analogous to rule 3.11b's exemption-discoverability rule — codifying the inherited-from-base case so future β reviewers do not have to re-derive the resolution per cycle.

This is the second instance of β invoking rule 3.5 to dismiss an inherited-CI-red situation (β-360 was the first). Two N=1 observations on the same axis is the threshold where a process patch becomes warranted; β leaves the patch authorship to γ's PRA via the recommendation in `beta-review.md` §CI status, since rule 3.12 ("review divergence is a skill gap") applies to the review skill itself.

**γ-as-δ §5.2 single-session dispatch configuration.** This cycle ran under `operator/SKILL.md` §5.2 (single-session δ-as-γ via Agent tool), declared explicitly in `gamma-scaffold.md` frontmatter. Per `release/SKILL.md` §3.8 configuration-floor clause, the γ axis is capped at A− for this cycle regardless of execution quality; γ/δ separation is structurally absent. β notes this for γ's PRA — the C_Σ grade will need to honor the A− γ floor. β's own observation: dispatch coordination was clean (γ scaffold present, α prompts and β prompts well-formed, scope tightly bounded); the cap reflects the structural configuration, not the execution.

**Small-change cycle discipline.** This cycle is the kind of work the small-change track is designed for: a single, named, structurally-additive prose patch that closes a precise behavioral gap. α completed the full 7-section self-coherence in incremental commits; β reviewed the full content surface in one round; both rounds touched only what mattered. The optional `alpha-closeout.md` was correctly skipped per I6 small-change cycle policy.

## Release Notes

**Disposition.** Docs-only disconnect per `release/SKILL.md` §2.5b. No tag, no version bump, no CHANGELOG ledger row. The merge commit `1b92ccbf` is the disconnect signal.

**δ release boundary action required (handoff).** Per `release/SKILL.md` §2.5b, the cycle directory `.cdd/unreleased/362/` should be moved to `.cdd/releases/docs/{ISO-date}/362/` where `{ISO-date}` is the merge commit's UTC date (2026-05-14 based on `git show 1b92ccbf --format='%cI' --no-patch` if needed). γ writes `docs/gamma/cdd/docs/{ISO-date}/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md` rather than a tagged-release PRA. β does not execute the directory move — it is part of γ closure per `release/SKILL.md` §2.5b and falls outside β's authority per `beta/SKILL.md` Core Principle ("β does NOT ... move `.cdd/` artifacts to release directories").

**What changed in the system's behavior.** Any agent loading `cap/SKILL.md` will now read §1.5 before reaching §2 (Identify) and is bound by the question-vs-instruction classification gate. The U step terminates the response when the input is a question; only instructions proceed through full U→I→E. Ambiguous inputs route to the question side first (surface model, ask which response is wanted) before action fires. This closes the conduct gap reported in the issue and observed across multiple recent sessions.

**Validation surface.** The rule is prose that constrains future agent authorship. Operational proof is in future β verdicts on cycles where α encounters the question-vs-instruction distinction. The first proof point will be the first cycle after this merge where the operator's input is question-shaped; that cycle's β review will be able to cite §1.5 as governing.

**Handoff to γ for PRA.** γ writes the post-release assessment per `gamma/SKILL.md` §2.10. Inputs for γ:
- α-axis: 7-section self-coherence with incremental commits, peer enumeration, gap-claim verification — recommend A
- β-axis: one-round approval, pre-merge gate complete, rule 3.5/3.10 reasoning documented, process-axis recommendation surfaced — recommend A− (one-round APPROVED + inherited-CI handling cleanly precedented)
- γ-axis: §5.2 dispatch configuration → A− floor applies per `release/SKILL.md` §3.8 configuration-floor clause; tightly scoped scaffold, clean prompts — recommend A−
- C_Σ: geometric mean ≈ 3.9 → A. Honor §5.2 γ floor: cap γ at A−; γ-floor binding does not alter α or β grades. Operator-honest disposition: γ writes the final grades in the PRA.

β work complete; δ release boundary and γ PRA next.
