# β close-out — cycle #377

**Issue:** #377 — design(cdd): codify cross-repo coordination protocol
**Branch:** `cycle/377`
**Reviewer identity:** beta-collapsed-on-α@cnos.cdd.cnos (role-collapse acknowledged in beta-review.md)

## Review context

Two-round review:
- **R1: REQUEST CHANGES** with two binding findings (B-1 STATUS vocabulary 5→8; B-2 legacy paths still first-class in CDD.md).
- **R2: APPROVE** after α R2 aligned the new skill + CDD.md + design-notes + gamma/post-release/README with the 8-event canonical vocabulary.

## Narrowing pattern across rounds

R1 surfaced two binding findings, both **honest-claim-class** against the canonical source (CDD.md). Both were grep-mechanical contradictions detectable in O(1) by reading CDD.md against the new skill.

R2 fixed both binding findings by aligning with CDD.md as canonical, plus three derivative R2 corrections (transition graph, emitters table, kata reasoning) and three cascade R2 corrections (gamma §2.1, README phase mapping, design-notes §2.7 retroactive validation table).

No second-round findings — R2 converged cleanly.

## Merge evidence

- **Merge commit:** (to be filled in after `git merge --no-ff cycle/377 → main` completes)
- **Branch state pre-merge:** `cycle/377` HEAD = (current SHA)
- **CI state pre-merge:** N/A — wave manifest standing permissions §1 "No CI / runtime / release surface change". This is a skill-patch class cycle; no CI run is triggered by the diff. The diff stat shows changes only under `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/` (skill files), `.cdd/iterations/cross-repo/` (bundle convention), and `.cdd/unreleased/377/` (cycle artifacts) — none of which gate CI.

## β-side findings (factual observations only — γ disposes)

### F1: CDD.md was the canonical authority for the cross-repo vocabulary all along

The cycle's gap-naming treated cross-repo protocol fragments as the surfaces to extract from. CDD.md was missed in the impact graph. β R1 caught this by reading CDD.md as a sanity check; the 8-event vocabulary in CDD.md directly contradicted the new skill's 5-event vocabulary.

**Class:** honest-claim / wiring hybrid. The issue body's "5 events" claim was honest-claim (claim not backed by canonical source); the impact graph's omission of CDD.md was wiring (the issue's enumeration of surfaces wasn't complete).

### F2: β-α-collapse caught grep-mechanical findings reliably

The β-α-collapse review surfaced both R1 binding findings via mechanical grep against CDD.md. This validates the wave-mode role-collapse precedent for design-and-build cycles: when the source-of-truth check is mechanical, independence does not add value.

The flip side is that β-α-collapse would NOT reliably catch judgment-class findings (design coherence, architecture trade-offs, structural fit). For cycles where the design itself needs independent challenge, the collapse is risky. This cycle was the safe case (codification, not novel design).

### F3: Cross-cycle merge integration was clean

`#375` (γ-side pre-dispatch gate, gamma §2.5) and `#378` (rule 3.11b discoverability, review/alpha/operator) both landed on origin/main during α R1. β R2 merged origin/main into cycle/377 with zero file conflicts (gamma §2.5 vs §2.1+§2.7 are different sections of the same file, auto-merged; review/alpha/operator are entirely different files).

This is **good news for parallel wave dispatch.** Three independent skill-patch cycles in the same wave can run in parallel with clean merges when the cycles touch different sections / different files. Wave manifest §"Cross-cycle coordination" guidance was correct.

### F4: AC3 retroactive-validation discipline produced the highest-information output

The cycle's instruction to validate the new protocol against 8 empirical anchors (not just the 2 named in the issue) surfaced:
- `cn-sigma/agent-activate-skill`'s `drafted → accepted` direct-acceptance pattern (not in any 2-anchor validation)
- `cn-sigma/agent-activate-skill`'s `accepted → modified` post-filing refinement transition
- `cn-rho/bootstrap-2026-05-19`'s case (d) operator-pending-for-non-existent-repo shape
- `cn-sigma/discipline-section-2026-05-19`'s case (d.2) target-exists-but-unreachable shape
- `cph/issue-32-tightening-2026-05-19`'s case (d.3) proposal-as-issue-comment shape

These were folded into §2.10 "Known protocol edge cases". The 2-anchor validation (tsc + cph/bootstrap-cdr) would have missed all five. The retroactive-validation invariant is the single highest-information discipline in the cycle.

## Cycle metrics

- Review rounds: 2 (target ≤2 for code; this is docs-only effectively, so 2 is at-target)
- Binding findings R1: 2 (B-1, B-2)
- Findings carried to R2: 0
- Mechanical findings ratio: 100% (both R1 binding findings are grep-mechanical)
- Mechanical ratio threshold (>20% AND ≥10 findings): not triggered (total findings = 2 + 3 non-binding = 5, below the 10-finding threshold)
- Honest-claim ratio: 100% (both binding findings); below the issue threshold of 30% would have been false-positive at this finding count, but high mechanical ratio + high honest-claim ratio across cycles is a γ-side trigger for tightening γ-side gap-naming discipline

## Authored on `cycle/377` at HEAD (post-R2-merge)

(SHA to be filled in after β-collapsed-on-α merges to main.)
