# Post-Release Assessment — Cycle #364

**Date:** 2026-05-15
**Cycle:** #364 (merge commit `32b126e4`, docs-only §2.5b disconnect)
**Mode:** docs-only
**Assessed by:** γ

---

## §1. Coherence Measurement

- **Baseline:** #345 (docs) — α A, β A, γ A
- **This cycle:** #364 (docs) — α A, β A, γ A
- **Delta:** All three axes hold at A. The grade is meaningful at the new scope: #364 is a structurally weightier docs cycle than #345 (436L doctrine doc vs 319L role-pattern doc; 17 ACs vs 6 ACs; predicts a four-way structural refactor across the role / runtime-substrate / validation / boundary surfaces). Single-round zero-finding convergence held under that increased AC density and forward scope.
- **Coherence contract closed?** Yes. The gap — no canonical doctrine for the CDD coherence-cell refactor pattern — is resolved. `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` (436L) names the receipt-rule (`contract → α/β/γ cell → receipt → validator → δ boundary → accepted receipt as next-scope matter`) and predicts the structural four-way separation (roles / runtime substrate / validation predicate `V(contract, receipt, evidence) → verdict` / release+boundary effection) that subsequent refactor cycles must respect. `CDD.md` remains the canonical executable algorithm; the new doc is explicitly draft refactor doctrine. Practical landing order (six items) and five open questions are stated in the doc itself, so subsequent cycles inherit the schedule without needing to re-derive it.

---

## §2. Encoding Lag

| Issue | Title | Type | Design | Impl | Lag |
|-------|-------|------|--------|------|-----|
| (deferred — Landing-Order 2) | `receipt.cue` + `contract.cue` schema design | feature | sketched in COHERENCE-CELL.md | not started | new (this cycle) |
| (deferred — Landing-Order 3) | `cn-cdd-verify` refactor to contract/receipt validation | feature | named in COHERENCE-CELL.md | not started | new (this cycle) |
| (deferred — Landing-Order 4) | δ/operator skill split (`operator/SKILL.md` shrink + possible `delta/SKILL.md`) | process | named in COHERENCE-CELL.md | not started | new (this cycle) |
| (deferred — Landing-Order 5) | `gamma/SKILL.md` shrink (relocate runtime supervision idioms) | process | named in COHERENCE-CELL.md | not started | new (this cycle) |
| (deferred — Landing-Order 6) | ε relocation (`ROLES.md`, `cnos.core`, or new protocol-iteration package) | process | named in COHERENCE-CELL.md | not started | new (this cycle) |
| AC17 Q1–Q5 | Open questions: when V fires; capability-vs-command; ε relocation target; override receipting; evidence-graph reuse | design | open | n/a | new (this cycle) |
| #339 deferred | `operator/SKILL.md §3.4` pre-merge gate row | process | converged | not started | growing (carried from #339/#343/#345) |
| — | CI workflow integration for pre-merge gate | process | converged (deferred) | not started | growing (carried from #345) |
| — | cdw c-d-X instantiation | feature | sketched in ROLES.md §5 | not started | growing (carried from #345) |
| — | ε full skill (epsilon/SKILL.md beyond stub) | process | stub (64L) | not started | growing (carried from #345) |

**MCI/MCA balance:** Balanced. Six new lag items are deliberate by-design deferrals (Landing-Order 2–6 + AC17 Q1–Q5 are explicitly named in the doctrine doc as next-cycle inheritance per AC14/AC17). Four pre-existing lag items carried from #345 are still growing — the `operator/SKILL.md §3.4` pre-merge gate row is now in its fourth carry. No design frenzy: the new doctrine doc names its own implementation schedule rather than spawning an unbounded design tree. No implementation deficit on touched surface: every claim in COHERENCE-CELL.md cites either an existing surface or a named deferred work item. No MCI freeze required.

**Rationale:** Docs-only doctrine cycle. The six new lag items are the doctrine's own predicted next steps — they are explicit work, not unmet obligations. The carried items remain open because their cycles have not been scheduled, not because they are blocked.

---

## §3. Process Learning

**What went wrong:** Nothing actionable. Zero findings, 1 review round, R1 APPROVED. Four β observations recorded; all four classified by γ at close-out as drop-with-reasoning (not `cdd-*-gap` findings):

- Agent tool not surfaced under §5.2 in this harness — environment fact, not protocol gap
- Local-main divergence at merge time — caught by existing β pre-merge gate row 3
- 17 ACs vs §5.3 escalation criteria — heuristic, not hard-gate; operator authorized §5.2; criterion's rationale held (cycle did remain reliable)
- AC granularity vs document structure — α mitigated by embedding required phrases in operative reasoning

**What went right:**
- 17 ACs with embedded oracles produced single-round zero-finding convergence — design quality upstream paid off in review speed downstream
- α's design-grounded form choice for COHERENCE-CELL.md (full doctrine doc rather than scattered SKILL.md edits) cleanly separated "draft refactor doctrine" from "canonical executable algorithm" — the cycle ships the proposal surface that subsequent implementation cycles will depend on
- α's AC9 peer enumeration was thorough: COHERENCE-CELL.md cross-references CDD.md §1.4, ROLES.md §1, role SKILL.md files, validator surfaces, post-release/SKILL.md §5.6b, and `operator/SKILL.md §5` dispatch configurations without smuggling implementation work into the proposal
- β's observation discipline: four observations precisely categorized as non-findings with explicit reasoning, none promoted to findings on weak signal — preserves the meaning of "zero findings"
- γ dispatch under §5.2 single-session δ-as-γ ran cleanly: 17-AC oracle-grounded issue pack reduced α's decision surface; no γ-clarification needed mid-cycle

**Skill patches:** None. No recurring failure mode identified. The four observations are surface-distinct (harness, environment-state, sizing-heuristic, authoring pattern) and none recurs against a §9.1 trigger.

**Active skill re-evaluation:**
- The Agent-tool absence observation could prompt an addition to `operator/SKILL.md §5.2` clarifying that the disk-only alternative is admissible for docs-only cycles, but the current §5.2 already documents Agent-based sub-agent dispatch as canonical without forbidding the disk-only fallback. Below recurring-failure threshold. No patch.
- The 17-ACs-vs-§5.3 observation could prompt tightening §5.3 to "all of" rather than "any of", but the cycle demonstrates the heuristic was correctly applied: AC count nominated §5.1 but the docs-only no-cross-repo no-fix-rounds shape did not. Heuristic-not-hard-gate. No patch.

**CDD improvement disposition:** No patch needed this cycle. All skill surfaces as written were adequate. The doctrine doc itself names the structural improvements that future cycles will land — those are doctrine moves, not skill-patch moves.

---

## §4. Review Quality

**Cycles this release:** 1
**Avg review rounds:** 1.0 (target: ≤1 docs) ✅
**Superseded cycles:** 0

**Per-cycle round counts:**

| Cycle | Issue | Mode | Rounds | Binding findings (R1) | Notes |
|-------|-------|------|--------|----------------------|-------|
| #364 | CDD coherence-cell refactor doctrine | docs-only | 1 | 0 | R1 APPROVED; 0 findings; 4 β observations (not findings, not actionable on branch) |

**Finding-class breakdown:**

| Class | Definition | Count |
|---|---|---|
| **mechanical** | Caught by grep/diff/script | 0 |
| **wiring** | "X is wired into Y" but isn't | 0 |
| **honest-claim** | Doc claims something code/data doesn't back | 0 |
| **judgment** | Design/coherence assessment | 0 |
| **contract** | Work contract incoherent | 0 |

**Mechanical ratio:** 0% (0 findings total; threshold not applicable)
**Honest-claim ratio:** 0%
**Action:** None.

---

## §4a. CDD Self-Coherence

- **CDD α:** 4/4 — All 17 ACs met first pass with oracle evidence recorded in `self-coherence.md`. Peer enumeration covered the relevant surfaces (CDD.md, ROLES.md, role SKILL.md files, validator surfaces, post-release §5.6b, operator §5). Required phrases embedded in operative reasoning rather than checklist-style. Incremental commit discipline held throughout. Pre-review gate complete.
- **CDD β:** 4/4 — Contract integrity verified end-to-end. Four observations precisely categorized as non-findings with explicit reasoning preserved for γ triage. Pre-merge gate three rows executed (validators, worktree merge-test, identity check). Merge evidence complete (SHA `32b126e4`, push, Closes #364, β identity).
- **CDD γ:** 4/4 — 17-AC oracle-grounded issue pack was design-pre-converged before dispatch. Dispatch under §5.2 single-session δ-as-γ ran cleanly with operator authorization. No γ-clarification required mid-cycle. Post-merge γ closure handled all four observations with explicit drop-reasoning; no observation promoted to gap on weak signal; gamma-closeout names the §5.2 dispatch configuration in frontmatter.
- **Weakest axis:** none; all at 4/4 this cycle.
- **Action:** None.

---

## §4b. Cycle Iteration

**No §9.1 trigger fired.**

- Review rounds = 1 → no review-churn trigger (target ≤1 docs) ✅
- Mechanical findings = 0 of 0 total → no mechanical-overload trigger ✅
- No avoidable tooling/environment failure blocked the cycle ✅ (Agent-tool absence under §5.2 was an environment fact; disk-only α/β separation was sufficient for docs-only scope)
- No loaded skill failed to prevent a finding (0 findings) ✅

**Independent γ process-gap check:** Clean cycle. No recurring friction identified. The four observations are surface-distinct (harness fact, environment-state drift caught by existing gate, sizing heuristic, authoring pattern α self-mitigated) and none indicates a gate weakness, role-skill miss, coordination burden, or mechanization opportunity. The cycle is precisely the kind of work CDD is designed to produce: a stable proposal surface that subsequent implementation cycles depend on without smuggling implementation work into the proposal cycle itself.

Per `gamma/SKILL.md §2.10` closure-gate row 14 and `epsilon/SKILL.md §1`, `cdd-iteration.md` is **not required** when findings count == 0 — and this is the first cycle to honor the receipt-rule doctrine articulated in COHERENCE-CELL.md itself (`protocol_gap_count == 0` means no separate iteration artifact). Self-application is operative.

---

## §5. Production Verification

**Scenario:** Verify that the CDD coherence-cell refactor doctrine is canonically landed at the cdd-skill surface, that the receipt-rule and four-way separation are stated unambiguously, and that subsequent cycles can reference COHERENCE-CELL.md as the doctrine anchor for refactor work.

**Before this release:** No canonical doctrine for the CDD coherence-cell refactor pattern existed. The receipt/contract/validator structural model lived in operator notes and cycle close-outs without a single durable surface. Subsequent refactor cycles (schemas, validator, role-split) lacked a citation target.

**After this release:** `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` (436L) is the canonical draft refactor doctrine. `src/packages/cnos.cdd/README.md` carries a pointer to it. `CDD.md` remains the canonical executable algorithm — explicitly disclaimed in the doctrine doc.

**How to verify:**

1. `test -f src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` → exit 0 ✅
2. `wc -l src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` → 436 ✅
3. `rg 'contract → α/β/γ cell → receipt → validator → δ boundary' src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` → ≥1 hit ✅
4. `rg 'COHERENCE-CELL\.md' src/packages/cnos.cdd/README.md` → ≥1 hit ✅
5. `git log -1 --format='%H' src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/CDD.md` → predates `32b126e4` (CDD.md unchanged this cycle) ✅
6. `rg 'draft refactor doctrine' src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` → ≥1 hit ✅
7. `rg 'V\(contract, receipt, evidence\)' src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` → ≥1 hit ✅

**Result:** PASS — all seven oracle checks verified by β during R1 review (recorded in `beta-review.md`) and re-verified at post-merge state (recorded in `gamma-closeout.md §Post-merge verification`). No verification deferred.

---

## §6. CDD Closeout

| Step | Artifact | Skills loaded | Decision |
|------|----------|--------------|----------|
| 11 Observe | `.cdd/releases/docs/2026-05-15/364/{self-coherence,alpha-closeout,beta-review,beta-closeout,gamma-closeout,gamma-scaffold}.md` | post-release/SKILL.md, gamma/SKILL.md | Cycle shipped COHERENCE-CELL.md doctrine doc + README pointer; 1 review round; 0 findings; 4 non-actionable observations all dropped with reasoning |
| 12 Assess | `docs/gamma/cdd/docs/2026-05-15/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md` | post-release/SKILL.md | Assessment complete; α A, β A, γ A; C_Σ A |
| 13 Close | operator/SKILL.md §3.4 → next-MCA (receipt.cue/contract.cue design, Landing-Order 2); cycle/364 branch cleanup | post-release/SKILL.md | Cycle closed; the doctrine's own Landing-Order names the next move |

### §6a. Invariants Check

No architectural invariants document is touched by this cycle. Docs-only; no runtime behavior, package contracts, or engineering-level code surfaces affected. The doctrine doc predicts a future refactor that will touch invariants — that work is deferred per AC14 Landing-Order; this cycle ships only the proposal surface.

---

## §7. Next Move

**Next MCA:** Design `receipt.cue` and `contract.cue` (COHERENCE-CELL.md Landing-Order item 2) — formalize the receipt sketch into typed CUE schemas. This is the lowest-risk highest-leverage next step because it pins the receipt surface that every subsequent landing-order item depends on (Landing-Order 3's `cn-cdd-verify` refactor reads the schemas; Landing-Order 4's δ/operator split references the receipt boundary; Landing-Order 5's γ skill shrink references receipt-as-evidence).

**Owner:** γ (issue) → α (impl) → β (review)

**Branch:** pending — `cycle/{next}` per `CDD.md §Tracking` convention

**First AC:** `schemas/receipt.cue` and `schemas/contract.cue` exist at the cnos repo root, both compile cleanly with `cue vet`, both have a positive fixture under `schemas/fixtures/` that validates and a negative fixture that fails, and both schemas align with the receipt-rule sketch in `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` §Receipt Sketch.

**MCI frozen until shipped?** No — the doctrine doc explicitly defers schema design as Landing-Order item 2; subsequent refactor cycles (validator, role splits) are not blocked on this cycle's merge, only on the schema cycle's merge. The doctrine doc itself is the gate, not the schemas.

**Closure evidence (CDD §10):**
- Immediate outputs executed: this PRA (`docs/gamma/cdd/docs/2026-05-15/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md`); cycle evidence moved to `.cdd/releases/docs/2026-05-15/364/`; CHANGELOG row added; cycle/364 remote branch deleted
- Deferred outputs carried: Landing-Order items 2–6, AC17 Q1–Q5, plus the four items carried from #345 PRA (`operator/SKILL.md §3.4` pre-merge gate row, CI workflow integration, cdw bootstrap, ε full skill)
- `cycle/364` branch cleanup: executed at this commit (`git push origin --delete cycle/364`)

**Immediate fixes executed in this session:**
- `.cdd/unreleased/364/` moved to `.cdd/releases/docs/2026-05-15/364/`
- `docs/gamma/cdd/docs/2026-05-15/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md` written (this file)
- `CHANGELOG.md` Unreleased section updated with `#364 (docs)` row
- Issue #364 closed
- `cycle/364` remote branch deleted

---

## §8. Hub Memory

Hub memory is operator-owned. No hub repo is accessible in this γ/δ session.

**Next-session checklist for hub memory:**
- **Daily reflection:** Cycle #364 closed (docs-only, A/A/A). CDD coherence-cell refactor doctrine now canonical at `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` (436L). Receipt-rule named (`contract → α/β/γ cell → receipt → validator → δ boundary → accepted receipt as next-scope matter`). Four-way structural separation predicted (roles / runtime substrate / validation / boundary). CDD.md preserved as canonical executable algorithm. Six-item Landing-Order plus five open questions stated. Next: design `receipt.cue` + `contract.cue` (Landing-Order 2).
- **Adhoc thread (CDD refactor arc):** The cycle's doctrine doc opens an explicit refactor arc with named landing order. Thread should track each of Landing-Order 2–6 as discrete cycles; AC17 Q1–Q5 resolved in the schema cycle (Landing-Order 2) or the validator cycle (Landing-Order 3) as appropriate. ε relocation (Landing-Order 6) remains coupled to the broader ε full-skill thread carried from #345.
- **Adhoc thread (CDD self-improvement arc):** `operator/SKILL.md §3.4` pre-merge gate row is now in its fourth carry (from #339/#343/#345 plus this cycle). Highest-priority small-change item; consider folding into the schema cycle or scheduling discretely. CI workflow integration also still open. Both still growing lag.
