---
cycle: 360
role: beta
issue: "https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/360"
date: "2026-05-14"
merge_sha: "56202534"
verdict_sha: "35618e8b"
sections:
  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 — #360

## Review Summary

**Verdict:** APPROVED (R1, single round).
**Merge:** `562025342020e03eeea6629e164d97b12147d1d0` — `--no-ff` merge of `cycle/360` into `main` with `Closes #360`. Author `beta@cdd.cnos`, pushed to `origin/main`.
**Cycle SHA at verdict:** `35618e8b` (β's §Findings + verdict-finalization commit, on top of α's `63c2100b`).
**Base SHA:** `c77f34a4` — `origin/main` was static across the entire cycle (no σ pushes during β's session).

The cycle ships a +5/−1-line clarification of `review/SKILL.md` rule 3.11b: the "documented in the issue" exemption clause now explicitly requires the sub-issue body (or a γ-linked authority issue body), with master/parent-issue comments explicitly denied. Two recovery paths are named (γ authors gamma-scaffold.md, or γ amends sub-issue body with a `## Protocol exemption` section). β review concluded in a single round with no D/C/B/A findings on the patched surface.

## Implementation Assessment

α's patch is well-aimed. The four substantive edits inside rule 3.11b — Scope tightening, Exemption-discoverability bullet, Recovery-paths bullet, Document bullet extension — each map cleanly to a single AC. The diff is structurally bounded (one file, one rule body, no surrounding rule touched) which is the right shape for a "clarify wording" cycle and made the review tractable.

Two craft observations worth recording:

1. **Grep-checkable header.** Path (b) of the recovery bullet names the literal `## Protocol exemption` header. That choice converts a judgment check ("does the sub-issue body grant exemption?") into a mechanical check ("does the body grep for the named header?"). β can verify rule compliance with `gh issue view {N}` + grep instead of inferring from prose. This is the right substitution for a rule meant to prevent reviewer divergence.
2. **`tsc #49 F2` provenance embedded.** The *Derives from* citation lives inside the rule body itself, not in a footnote or change log. Future β subagents reading the rule cold get the origin-incident without needing to crawl history. This matches the pattern β/SKILL.md row 3 uses for its own pre-merge gate rationale (cycle #301 O8 reference) and is the form `write/SKILL.md` recommends for normative rules.

α's §Debt is honest and well-scoped: item 1 names `beta/SKILL.md` row 4 disagreement as pre-existing out-of-scope debt (the row 4 mechanical-gate entry doesn't repeat the new exemption-discoverability bullet — a documentation-locality call, not an incoherence); item 2 names the absence of automated test, which is correct because prose rules don't admit unit tests and the operational proof surface is future-cycle β verdicts.

## Technical Review

| Check | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Contract integrity (β-review §2.0.0) | 11/11 pass |
| AC coverage (β-review §2.0) | 3/3 Met |
| Named doc updates | `review/SKILL.md` rule 3.11b only — bounded as planned |
| γ artifact gate (3.11b on this cycle) | pass — `gamma-scaffold.md` blob `4441b2c7`, commit `8888f2d2` |
| Honest-claim (3.13) | no measurement, wiring, or term-drift claims to verify; tsc #49 F2 citation pointer is internal to the rule body, not a quantitative claim |
| Architecture (review/architecture/SKILL.md) | n/a — prose patch inside an existing rule body, no new control flow, no module-graph or contract-surface change |
| CI gate (rule 3.10) | green — `Build` `conclusion=success` on review SHA `13e09931` and verdict SHA `35618e8b` |
| Pre-merge gate (β/SKILL.md) | rows 1–4 all pass; merge tree clean, no conflicts |

The cycle is self-referential — it patches the rule β uses to gate it — and that self-reference is benign: both the pre-patch and post-patch rule bodies pass for cycle 360 because `gamma-scaffold.md` is present and no exemption is claimed. β's verdict on this cycle is the first operational citation of the patched body and confirms the new header-grep mechanism works.

## Process Observations

1. **Phantom-blocker disposition was load-bearing.** At intake, `Build` workflow was red on every α commit `a3a34a16`–`63c2100b`. β's R1 §Findings F1 records the disposition: the same workflow flipped to green on β's own commits `7c634ed5` and `13e09931` without any α-side change to the patched rule body, indicating the build pipeline picks up `.cdd/` artifact state as input. The α-commit reds were not driven by α's rule patch. Rule 3.5 ("no phantom blockers") prevented this from being an RC against α; rule 3.10 (CI-green-on-review-SHA) was satisfied because the verdict SHA was green. The pairing of 3.5 and 3.10 worked as designed here.

2. **Two β sessions timed out before this one.** The dispatch prompt noted prior session timeouts during review. The on-branch artifact state was consistent with the [resumption protocol](../../../../src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/beta/SKILL.md) (manifest tracked completed sections, the verdict-finalization edits were uncommitted but coherent). Resumption was a single read of `beta-review.md` plus a §Findings append — the section-manifest discipline made this cheap. The one rough edge: the prior session marked `R1-findings` and `R1-verdict` complete in the manifest, but no §Findings section existed (the verdict header text referenced "Findings F1" as a forward reference that pointed nowhere). The fix was to write the section this session. The general lesson is that manifest-completion markers should be advanced when a section is *written*, not when it is *planned-to-be-written*.

3. **The cycle is its own first test.** The rule body the cycle ships requires β to cite the sub-issue body section that grants an exemption. β verified on this cycle that no exemption is claimed (so no citation is needed) — and the §Artifact completeness sub-section in `beta-review.md` records that finding in the exact form the new rule prescribes. The rule and its first witness ship in the same commit graph.

## Release Notes

- **Surface changed:** `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/review/SKILL.md` rule 3.11b body (+5/−1).
- **Behavior change:** future β verdicts citing rule 3.11b must check the **sub-issue body** (or a γ-linked authority issue body) for any claimed exemption. Comments on master/parent issues are explicitly insufficient. When 3.11b RC fires, two named recovery paths are available: (a) γ authors the missing `gamma-scaffold.md`, or (b) γ amends the sub-issue body with a `## Protocol exemption` section.
- **Migration:** none. The rule already existed; only its exemption-scope is tightened. No in-flight cycles depend on the prior looser reading because the failure mode (master-comment exemption) was a tsc-side observed divergence, not a cnos-side baked-in assumption.
- **δ at the release boundary:** when δ tags/disconnects this cycle's release, the cycle artifacts at `.cdd/unreleased/360/` move to `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/360/` per `release/SKILL.md` §2.5a. β does not own that move.
- **γ for the PRA:** the operational-proof surface for this rule is future β citations of 3.11b. γ's PRA can look at the next ~5 cycles where 3.11b is invoked and check whether the new exemption-discoverability bullet was applied as written. The "review divergence is a skill gap" framing (rule 3.12) means that if future β subagents diverge again on 3.11b, the fix is another patch to this rule body, not "be more careful."
