# cdd-iteration — cycle #377

**Cycle:** #377
**Branch:** `cycle/377`
**Author:** γ-collapsed-on-δ@cnos.cdd.cnos (in role-collapse with α and β per cycle artifacts)
**Date:** 2026-05-20

This file extracts the cycle's `cdd-*-gap` findings into structured form per `cdd/post-release/SKILL.md §5.6b` + `cdd/activation/SKILL.md §22`.

---

## F1: γ-side gap-naming discipline omits CDD.md grep for cycles touching CDD lifecycle doctrine

- **Source:** β-review R1 finding B-1 + α-closeout F1 + this cycle's R1→RC→R2 pattern + β-closeout F1
- **Class:** `cdd-skill-gap`
- **Trigger:** §9.1 loaded-skill-miss trigger — `cdd/gamma/SKILL.md §2.2a` Peer enumeration at scaffold time required grep + ls for directly-named surfaces but did not require grep against CDD.md for the protocol concern the cycle was addressing. The result: this cycle's γ scaffold + issue impact graph + α R1 all under-read CDD.md's 8-event cross-repo vocabulary, leading to a wasted R1 RC round.
- **Description:** When a cycle touches CDD-lifecycle doctrine (cross-repo, role lifecycle, gates, artifact contract, ε flow, master/sub mapping, etc.), the cycle's γ scaffold and impact graph must enumerate **CDD.md** as a candidate surface, not just the role skills and lifecycle sub-skills. CDD.md is the canonical source for artifact contract per `cdd/SKILL.md §"Conflict rule"`; any cycle that adds protocol mechanics is at risk of contradicting CDD.md if its impact graph does not include CDD.md.

  The current `gamma/SKILL.md §2.2a` rule is: "γ MUST list every file in the directories named by the issue's impact graph (`ls -la` or `find` per directory), grep for the term / symbol / surface the cycle proposes to add or change (`rg <term> <directories>`), name any match in §Gap." The rule is correct for cycles named-surfaces-only; it under-specifies for cycles where CDD.md is the canonical source of truth but isn't in the impact graph.

  The extension: when the cycle touches CDD lifecycle doctrine, the §2.2a peer enumeration MUST include `rg <concern> src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/CDD.md` (in addition to the issue-named directories) and surface any matches in §Gap with explicit reconciliation.

- **Root cause:** The original §2.2a rule was authored to prevent the "X does not exist" honest-claim failure (tsc cycle #36's `kata-check` job miss); it focused on cycle-named surfaces. It did not anticipate that for CDD-protocol-mechanics cycles, CDD.md itself is a surface the cycle modifies, and the impact graph may omit it because the issue body omitted it. The under-specification permits the same class of failure (incomplete impact-graph honest-claim) at one level of indirection (γ scaffolds against the issue's claimed surfaces, not against CDD.md).

- **Disposition:** `next-MCA`

- **Issue filed:** TBD (this finding is the basis for a future cycle issue; γ-side rule extension to `cdd/gamma/SKILL.md §2.2a`)

- **First AC:** `cdd/gamma/SKILL.md §2.2a` updated to add: "If the cycle touches CDD lifecycle doctrine (cross-repo coordination, role lifecycle, gates, artifact contract, ε flow, master/sub mapping, or any other rule under `CDD.md` §1–§13), the peer enumeration MUST include `rg <concern> src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/CDD.md` and surface any matches in §Gap with explicit reconciliation against CDD.md as canonical." Empirical anchor: cnos cycle #377 R1 → RC → R2 fix-round, where issue impact graph omitted CDD.md §"Cross-repo proposal lifecycle" lines 213–245 carrying the canonical vocabulary that contradicted the issue's claimed 5-event vocabulary.

---

## §2 Trigger assessment (per gamma/SKILL.md §2.8 table)

| Trigger | Fire condition | Fired? | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review churn | review rounds > 2 | **No** (rounds = 2) | At target. |
| Mechanical overload | mechanical ratio > 20% AND findings ≥ 10 | **No** | 100% mechanical of 2 binding; below 10-finding threshold. |
| Avoidable tooling / environment failure | environment blocked the cycle | **No** | No tooling friction. |
| Loaded-skill miss | a loaded skill should have prevented a finding | **Yes** | F1 above; `next-MCA` disposition. |

---

## §3 Aggregator update

`.cdd/iterations/INDEX.md` (when present) receives one row for cycle 377:

```markdown
| 377 | #377 | 2026-05-20 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | .cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/377/cdd-iteration.md |
```

(Findings counted: F1 only; the R1 findings B-1 and B-2 were both patched in R2 within this cycle, not deferred — they do not become next-MCA. F1 is the recurring-class finding that surfaced from the R1→R2 pattern and is filed for follow-on.)

---

## §4 Cross-repo trace

This cycle does not produce cross-repo patches. F1 is a cnos-internal γ-side skill patch (filed as next-MCA for future cycle). No `.cdd/iterations/cross-repo/` bundle needed.

---

## §5 Hat-collapse acknowledgment

This cycle ran with γ=δ=α=β collapsed on δ per wave manifest §5.2 wave-mode precedent. Per `cdd/cross-repo/SKILL.md §2.9` hat-collapse attribution form (now codified by this cycle), the actor-level collapse is named where it happens: this file (cdd-iteration.md) and self-coherence.md + beta-review.md + closeouts.

Cycle #377 is the **first cycle to file a `cdd-iteration.md` whose own cycle was the empirical anchor for the canonical hat-collapse-attribution form codified in that cycle's deliverable** — a small structural loop, recorded for honesty.

---

## §6 Next-MCA commitment

cnos γ (future cycle):
1. File issue against `cdd/gamma/SKILL.md §2.2a` for the rule extension named in F1 above.
2. Acceptance: §2.2a carries the CDD.md grep clause; an empirical-anchor citation to cnos #377 R1→R2 fix-round; a ❌/✅ example contrasting incomplete vs. complete impact-graph against CDD.md for a CDD-doctrine cycle.

This commitment is filed as part of γ close-out and surfaced for δ / wave ε iteration.
