# β Close-out — Issue #324

## Merge evidence

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Merge commit SHA | `0b57a849` |
| Merged branch | `origin/cycle/324` → `main` |
| Merge commit message | `Closes #324: skill(cdd/issue) — split issue skill into focused subskills and add label taxonomy` |
| Branch head at merge | `f175fa5f` (cycle/324 after beta-review §Phase 2 push) |
| origin/main SHA at review base | `672ba729bb2aa1d549744698759e789a97b85d8c` |
| β identity | `beta@cdd.cnos` |
| Review rounds | 1 |

## Review context

**Cycle:** issue skill refactor + label taxonomy addition — P2, `refactor`, `cdd`.

The branch was a docs-only diff (5 SKILL.md files + self-coherence.md). α's review-readiness signal was clean: 12 ACs fully evidenced, 14 original rules explicitly redistributed, peer enumeration completed, CI state correctly explained (docs-only; build.yml triggers on main only).

Review completed in one round with no findings. Contract integrity passed on all 10 checks. All 12 ACs verified against the actual file contents (not just α's claims). Architecture check: n/a for runtime/registry checks; reason-to-change and interface truthfulness both clean.

## Narrowing pattern

No narrowing required. The issue was precisely scoped with clear subskill boundary definitions in AC7's ownership table. α's self-coherence gave the redistribution table for §3.1–§3.14 explicitly, which made rule-preservation verification mechanical rather than judgment-bearing.

## β-side findings

One observation recorded in beta-review.md §Notes: §3.9 rule ("Examples must obey the issue's own rules") is distributed across three surfaces in the new family rather than appearing as one explicit rule. The substance is fully captured. Pattern: rule redistribution across multiple files can make individual rules harder to locate; γ may want to note this as a mild coherence risk if the subskill family grows further.

No other findings. No process debt on β's side. One round, clean merge, docs-only.
