# ε cdd-iteration — cycle/407 (Sub 2 of cnos#403)

**Issue:** [cnos#407](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/407) — Author cnos.cds/CDS.md (six-field software instantiation contract).
**Mode:** design-and-build; γ+α+β collapsed on δ.
**Rounds:** R1 APPROVED (no fix-rounds).
**ACs:** 9/9 PASS.

## Findings

**None.**

`protocol_gap_count` for this cycle: **0**. No `cdd-skill-gap`, `cdd-protocol-gap`, `cdd-tooling-gap`, `cdd-metric-gap`, or (forward-looking) `cds-*-gap` surfaced. Thirteen β + α + β-review observations (dedupable to ~9 distinct) are recorded in `alpha-closeout.md`, `beta-closeout.md`, and `beta-review.md`, dispositioned in `gamma-closeout.md`; all are non-binding and editorial/doctrine-shape/improvement-class, none are protocol-class gaps.

## Cadence rule conformance

Per the cycle/401 cadence rule (landed at [cnos#401](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/401)): `cdd-iteration.md` is required only when `protocol_gap_count > 0`. This cycle's count is 0; the artifact is therefore **not required**.

The file is written as a **courtesy artifact** per the cycle/401 closing convention and per #407's dispatch obligation (the gamma-scaffold's required-artifact list explicitly names a courtesy stub for `protocol_gap_count: 0`). The dispatch explicitly requested the courtesy stub; α complies.

**Naming note:** the per-cycle iteration file remains `cdd-iteration.md` for this cycle. CDS.md Field 5 (this cycle's own deliverable) declares `cds-iteration.md` as the post-rename canonical name; the rename is mechanical Sub-5-territory operational detail. Using `cdd-iteration.md` here preserves consistency with the empirical-anchor cycle wave (#335 through #406) until Sub 5 lands the rename.

## Protocol-gap signals (across receipt-stream)

**None surfaced this cycle.** This is a doctrinal-contract-authoring cycle; the work is contract-shape (mirror CDR.md's structural shape; declare CDS-specific Field-N answers; cite the kernel without restating). No protocol-class gaps surfaced during α work, β review, or γ close-out.

The ~9 distinct β + α + β-review observations are editorial / doctrine-coherence improvements that α made proactively (the per-Field Sub-N-vs-Field-M scope-discipline lines; the per-Field empirical-anchor spot-checks; the post-rephrase AC4 categorization table; the Field 6 β-α-collapse-on-δ canonical declaration; the Field 5 `cds-*-gap` rename; the Field 4 three-time-scale cadence; the Field 3 narrative-plus-typed-receipt two-surface declaration; the §"Architecture choice" CDS-side rationale reframings; the "thrice" renaming in rationale (5)). None of these are skill-failure signals.

The loaded skills (`cdd`, `cdd/design`, `cdd/issue/contract`, `cdd/issue/proof`) all guided the work successfully. In particular, `cdd/design §3.2` "one source of truth" was the load-bearing principle that prompted α to run the AC4 sliding-window audit pre-commit, which caught four substantive kernel-prose echoes in α's first-pass draft. The principle worked; the audit worked; the rephrase pass was clean.

## Non-findings worth recording (candidate ε observations for future cycles)

These are recorded for future-cycle ε consideration. They are *not* protocol gaps this cycle surfaces; they are forward-looking observations that the cycle's discipline already addressed but that future similar cycles may benefit from codifying.

- **Candidate `cds-skill-gap` for Sub 3's β-skill authoring: codify the AC4 sliding-window audit.** The mechanical 50-char sliding-window scan (case-insensitive, whitespace-collapsed) against named kernel files produces a categorizable hit table that makes the AC4 self-check mechanical rather than judgment-bound. β recommends Sub 3's `beta/SKILL.md` codify this as a pre-review check for any cycle whose matter is doctrinal-contract authoring. This cycle's α and β both ran the audit and verified the categorization; without codification, a future cycle's α may rely only on intuition ("I cited the source") and miss substantive duplications. **Recorded for ε observation; not a gap this cycle surfaced because the audit was run.**

- **Candidate `cds-skill-gap` for the design/SKILL.md or the issue-body template: line-target guidance for contract-authoring cycles.** This cycle's CDS.md landed at 1040 lines vs the issue's 500–700 target. The excess length is substantive scope-discipline content (per-Field Sub-N-vs-Field-M lines, per-Field empirical-anchor spot-checks, AC4-enforced reframings). The issue body's "target, not a hard ceiling" caveat is correct, but future contract-authoring cycles' issue bodies may benefit from naming the cited template's actual length (e.g. "CDR.md is 617 lines; CDS.md mirror is reasonable at 1000+ given per-Field scope-discipline lines"). **Recorded for ε observation; not a gap this cycle surfaced because the caveat was sufficient.**

- **Candidate `cdr-protocol-gap` for future CDR.md edit (cross-protocol observation):** per-Field Sub-N-vs-Field-M scope-discipline lines are a structural improvement CDS.md introduced beyond CDR.md's shape. A future CDR.md edit could add the same per-Field lines (declaring "Field N owns taxonomy; Sub M owns operational detail") to mirror CDS.md's scope-discipline. This is a CDR-side concern; not a CDS gap. **Recorded as a cross-protocol cross-reference observation only; the future CDR work owns whether to action it.**

These three are the cycle's full ε-observation surface. None require a patch this cycle; all are forward-looking forks of work for future cycles to consider.

## Verdict

No ε action required beyond what is shipped in the cycle delivery. No protocol patch to defer. No follow-on Sub to spin for this cycle (Subs 3–7 of #403 are already filed in the tracker; they are the natural continuation, not ε-discovered follow-ons).

Sub 2 of #403 is complete. Subs 3–5 of #403 are now dispatchable (CDS.md's named surfaces are the anchor targets); Sub 6 gates on Subs 3–5; Sub 7 gates on Subs 3–5.
