<!-- sections: [review-summary, implementation-assessment, technical-review, process-observations, release-notes] -->
<!-- completed: [review-summary, implementation-assessment, technical-review, process-observations, release-notes] -->

# β Close-out — Issue #359

**Cycle:** 359 — `cdd: §5.2 δ-as-γ collapse scope — clarify γ↔α↔β stays separate`
**Dispatch configuration:** §5.2 single-session δ-as-γ via Agent tool (per `.cdd/DISPATCH`)
**Mode:** docs-only (skill-prose patch)
**Base SHA:** `23e28e45` (origin/main at γ scaffold time and at β merge time — main did not advance during the cycle)
**α head SHA at review-readiness:** `701f8947`
**β verdict SHA:** `898856ce`
**Merge SHA:** `6ba253f7` (authored `beta@cdd.cnos`)
**Disconnect:** docs-only — the merge commit is the disconnect signal per `release/SKILL.md §2.5b`. No tag, no version bump, no CHANGELOG ledger row. δ moves `.cdd/unreleased/359/` to `.cdd/releases/docs/{YYYY-MM-DD}/359/`.

## Review Summary

Single-round review, APPROVED at R1. The cycle ships +4 lines to `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/operator/SKILL.md` §5.2 — two paragraphs that (1) name the collapse scope explicitly ("§5.2 collapses δ↔γ only") and (2) describe what a §5.2 violation looks like ("a single sub-agent that performs γ-selection plus α-implementation plus β-review is not §5.2 — it is a §1.4 violation").

All three ACs from the issue body were met with text-presence evidence in `git show 22e9e7eb`:
- AC1 — explicit scope statement landed at line 301
- AC2 — violation shape named at line 303
- AC3 — downstream §5.2 references (`release/SKILL.md §3.8`, `activation/SKILL.md §8`, `operator/SKILL.md §5.3`) left coherent because none asserts α/β collapse; the patch sharpens, does not contradict

Zero findings at any severity. APPROVED was the conjunction-form verdict per `review/SKILL.md` rule 3.3.

## Implementation Assessment

**Diff discipline.** +4 lines / -0 lines on one file. α's patch is exactly the size the issue authorized — no scope creep into adjacent §5.x sections, no preventive edits to downstream consumers (because the patch is additive and downstream consumers already assume the now-explicit invariant).

**Brevity-is-earned (write/SKILL.md).** The "Scope of the collapse" lead and the violation-shape paragraph are both single-paragraph, front-loaded, and read at the same register as the surrounding §5 prose. No new headings, no cross-references that didn't already exist.

**Self-coherence artifact quality.** α's `self-coherence.md` shipped the full manifest `[gap, skills, acs, self-check, debt, cdd-trace, review-readiness]` in seven incremental commits — clean commit hygiene for the new α §2.6 SHA-convention discipline. §Self-check enumerated peer skills and exempted them with reasons; §CDD-Trace step 6 covered the downstream-reference inspection. §Debt was honestly "None."

**One narrative observation, recorded in §beta-review.md §Notes.** α's §CDD-Trace step 6 list mentions `alpha/SKILL.md (review-readiness fix-round protocol)` among downstream §5.2 references. That file's only `§5.2` match (line 131) is to `CDD.md §5.2` (canonical artifact order), not to the patched `operator/SKILL.md §5.2`. The §ACs AC3 enumeration was correct; only the §CDD-Trace narrative loosely conflated the two §5.2's. Below the bar for an A-finding because the shipped artifact is sound; recorded here so γ's PRA can decide whether α's peer-enumeration narrative pass needs a tightening note.

## Technical Review

**Patch correctness.** The new paragraphs land between the mechanism paragraph (line 299: "α and β are dispatched as sub-agents") and the "Three structural consequences follow:" list (line 305). This is the right insertion point: the mechanism paragraph implicitly carries α/β separation (sub-agents have isolated contexts), and the new "Scope of the collapse" block makes that implication explicit before the consequences-list specializes it to δ=γ. Existing consequence 1 ("δ=γ collapse") becomes a coherent sub-claim under the new scope statement rather than a free-standing assertion.

**Downstream coherence verified.** Inspected the three downstream sites that reference §5.2:
- `release/SKILL.md §3.8` configuration-floor clause — describes "γ/δ separation absent" as the basis for the A− γ-axis cap. Patch reinforces this; no conflict.
- `activation/SKILL.md §8` (DISPATCH declaration) — describes §5.2 as "single-session δ-as-γ via Agent tool." Patch is a within-section refinement; no projection drift.
- `operator/SKILL.md §5.3` escalation criteria — refers to "Switch from §5.2 to §5.1." Patch leaves §5.3 unchanged; the new violation-shape paragraph does not introduce a new escalation trigger.

**Honest-claim verification (rule 3.13).** All four sub-checks passed — measurements reproducible, terms aligned with canonical sources, no false wiring claims, gap claim grep-verified. The originating signal (tsc #49 wave-1 misread) is cited but not verified against the upstream repo; verification on the within-repo patch is sufficient because the misread is plausible and the patch is justified on its internal merits.

**CI status.** Build workflow `success` on review HEAD `701f8947` (`gh run list --branch cycle/359`, run created `2026-05-14T21:24:44Z`). Rule 3.10 (CI-green gate) satisfied.

**Pre-merge gate (β/SKILL.md).** All four rows passed:
- Row 1 (identity truth): `git config --get user.email` = `beta@cdd.cnos` before and after the throwaway-worktree merge-test; the worktree-local config was set with explicit `--worktree` flag and did not leak to shared `.git/config` (cycle #301 O8 pattern avoided).
- Row 2 (canonical-skill freshness): `origin/main` remained at `23e28e45` from session start through merge — no spec churn to re-load.
- Row 3 (non-destructive merge-test): throwaway worktree at `/tmp/cnos-merge-359/wt`, `git merge --no-ff --no-commit origin/cycle/359` returned "Automatic merge went well; stopped before committing as requested" with zero unmerged paths. `scripts/check-version-consistency.sh` PASSED on the merge tree. `tools/validate-skill-frontmatter.sh` is a no-op in this environment (prerequisite `cue` missing, exit 0) — acceptable because the cycle's diff does not touch SKILL.md frontmatter, only mid-body prose.
- Row 4 (γ artifact completeness): `.cdd/unreleased/359/gamma-scaffold.md` present on `origin/cycle/359`, authored `gamma@cdd.cnos` at commit `88a573de`. Rule 3.11b satisfied.

**Author identity audit on merged history.**
```
6ba253f7 beta@cdd.cnos   merge: cycle/359 — clarify §5.2 collapses δ↔γ only (Closes #359)
898856ce beta@cdd.cnos   β-359: review verdict — APPROVED (round 1)
701f8947 alpha@cdd.cnos  α-359: self-coherence §Review-readiness — ready for β
... (7 more α commits, all alpha@cdd.cnos)
22e9e7eb alpha@cdd.cnos  α-359: clarify §5.2 collapses δ↔γ only — γ↔α↔β stays separate
88a573de gamma@cdd.cnos  cycle(359): γ scaffold — §5.2 collapse scope clarification
```
Identity-truth invariant intact across the cycle.

## Process Observations

**Single-round, zero-finding cycle.** A 4-line skill clarification with 3 ACs and an explicit recommended patch text in the issue body produced a clean R1-APPROVED outcome. Two signals to record for γ's PRA:
- (i) Issues that ship recommended-patch text (or a pointer to one, as #359 does with tsc#49's `cdd-iteration.md` F1) reduce α's design-and-plan surface to "execute the recommendation" — design + plan artifacts can honestly be marked "not required," and the cycle's coherence stays within the 3-AC envelope. This pattern is repeatable for small skill clarifications.
- (ii) The §Gap framing was sharply scoped ("§5.2 did not state which role-pair the collapse covers"). γ's scaffold enumerated the gap, the misread, and the three ACs in one pass; α did not need a γ-clarification round, β did not need a peer-enumeration challenge to γ's gap claim. The peer-enumeration grep (`rg "§5\.2|δ-as-γ|δ=γ|δ↔γ"`) found no pre-existing surface that already stated the scope, confirming the gap was real.

**§5.2 configuration-floor clause recorded.** The cycle ran under §5.2 per `.cdd/DISPATCH`; `release/SKILL.md §3.8` configuration-floor clause caps the γ axis at A− regardless of execution quality. β does not score the axes; recorded here so γ's PRA applies the cap and declares `§5.2` in `gamma-closeout.md` (the rubric treats undeclared cycles as §5.1 and the cap does not apply). This cycle is also self-referential — the patch clarifies the very configuration it runs under — which is a useful provenance signal but does not change the grading floor.

**Pre-merge gate continues to be cheap for small docs cycles.** Row 3's throwaway-worktree merge-test took seconds for a 4-line diff with no shared-config leak risk. The cost-benefit of always running the gate (vs. collapsing rows 2+3 for "small textual docs") favors always running it: the gate is the mechanism that catches identity drift, base-SHA drift, and merge conflicts at the cheapest possible moment.

**One small narrative inconsistency, not a finding.** Recorded in §beta-review.md §Notes — α's §CDD-Trace step 6 mentioned `alpha/SKILL.md` among downstream §5.2 references where the only match is to a different §5.2 (CDD.md's, not operator/SKILL.md's). Filed here as a γ-axis learning surface, not as α-axis remediation, because the shipped patch is correct and the §ACs AC3 enumeration was right.

## Release Notes

This is a **docs-only disconnect** per `release/SKILL.md §2.5b`. β does not author RELEASE.md, does not tag, does not bump VERSION, does not write a CHANGELOG ledger row. The merge commit (`6ba253f7`) is the disconnect signal.

**Handoff to δ.**
- δ moves the cycle directory: `mkdir -p .cdd/releases/docs/{YYYY-MM-DD}` then `mv .cdd/unreleased/359 .cdd/releases/docs/{YYYY-MM-DD}/359` where `{YYYY-MM-DD}` is the merge commit's date (`6ba253f7` was authored 2026-05-14). The move is a separate commit on `main`.
- δ does not tag, does not push tags, does not invoke `scripts/release.sh`.
- δ does not need to run `scripts/check-version-consistency.sh` — no version-stamped file changed.

**Handoff to γ.**
- γ writes the PRA at `docs/gamma/cdd/docs/{YYYY-MM-DD}/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md`.
- γ declares `§5.2` in `gamma-closeout.md` to ensure the A− γ-axis cap applies (configuration-floor clause).
- γ may capture the §CDD-Trace narrative inconsistency (recorded in §beta-review.md §Notes and §Process Observations above) as a learning surface for α's peer-enumeration narrative discipline, or may judge it below the bar for PRA mention. β does not pre-empt γ's editorial judgment.

**β's work is done.** Review → merge → close-out complete. No tagging authority, no release-boundary authority. δ takes over.
