# β — Cycle #278 (PR #279)

**Issue:** [#278](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/278) — *Package the triadic writer as cnos.writer*
**PR:** [#279](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/pull/279) — *design(#278): WRITER-PACKAGE — design lock for cnos.writer*
**Branch:** `claude/cnos-issue-278-Xh37v`
**Cycle scope:** non-release, design-only (issue Non-Goal #1).
**Mode:** MCA — answer is in the system (four doctrine cycle artifacts); package preserves contestability per IFA.
**Active skills loaded:** `cdd`, `beta`, `cdd/review`, `cdd/release` (informational; no release this cycle), `cdd/design` (Tier 1b for design-phase review), `cnos.core/skills/skill` and `cnos.core/skills/write` per dispatch (Tier 3).
**Role:** β

This file is β's per-cycle sync surface per the design's D10 (git-only triad communication, `.cdd/unreleased/{role}/{N}.md` for CDD-shape cycles). It accumulates round-by-round verdicts and becomes β's close-out at cycle end.

---

## Cycle history

### β round-1 — REQUEST CHANGES

**Reviewed head:** `766680b4bd553dee28b15b6ea41f769d11a37360` (α-1).
**CI on `766680b`:** 7/7 check runs `completed/success` (kata-tier1, kata-tier2, go, "Package/source drift (I1)", "Protocol contract schema sync (I2)", notify×2). Legacy commit-status API empty — orthogonal, not a blocker.
**Verdict surface at the time:** issue #278 comment [4329482133](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/278#issuecomment-4329482133) — operator routed via GitHub before D10 was established. From α-3 onward all communication is git-only.

**§2.0 Issue Contract verification:**

- **AC1** (4 scope questions × {chosen path / alternative considered / structural reasoning} = 12 elements): met. `grep -cE '^\*\*(Chosen path|Alternative considered|Structural reasoning):\*\*'` returns exactly 12.
- **AC2** (section "Divergences from cnos.cdd structure" + per-divergence reasoning OR no-divergence assertion): substance met (D1–D9 + "No divergence — explicitly:" subsection); polish miss on heading capitalization → F3.
- **AC3** (load-bearing constraints from four cycle artifacts with citations): met. LB1–LB10 cite all four cycles; sample verification confirmed every cited section/quote resolves to source verbatim (CFA-cycle-log §"What broke the oscillation"/§"Convergence", EFA-cycle-log §"Final round…", JFA-cycle-log-gamma §"No findings hidden under approval", IFA-cycle-log-gamma §"Inherited Failure Modes", IFA-critiques §"Verdict 02 — approve", doctrine README §"Cycle artifacts", `cnos.core/skills/write/SKILL.md` §3.3, `cnos.core/skills/skill/SKILL.md` §3.10).
- **Issue non-goals:** all four respected (no SKILL.md authored before lock; essays not migrated; package cnos-scoped; cnos.cdd peer not replacement).
- **Parallel dependency** (issue body §"Parallel dependency"): **missing** — no engagement with `docs/alpha/ctb/LANGUAGE-SPEC.md`. → F1.

**Findings:**

| # | Severity | Type | Finding |
|---|----------|------|---------|
| F1 | D | judgment | Parallel-dependency reconciliation with `docs/alpha/ctb/LANGUAGE-SPEC.md` (v0.1, draft-normative, 2026-04-26) absent. The proposed `SKILL.md` frontmatter shape was intermediate between LANGUAGE-SPEC §2 prescriptive and the older minimal shape — exactly the silent divergence the issue's reconcile-or-name rule prevents. Risk pattern: future authoring cycle drifts from §2 — a soft-inheritance instance at the package boundary, the very class LB6 names as central. |
| F2 | B | mechanical | CDD Trace row 7a stale: claimed "CI/branch-rebased rows do not apply" while the env actually had a remote, CI ran 7/7 green on `766680b`, and the branch was rebased on current `origin/main` HEAD `42084b8`. |
| F3 | A | mechanical | Heading capitalization: `## Divergences from cnos.cdd Structure` (capital S) vs issue body verbatim quote `Divergences from cnos.cdd structure` (lowercase s). |
| F4 | — (informational) | — | LB7 / §5.1 §-notation imprecise: `IFA-cycle-log-gamma.md §"Cold-Author Drift: Caught and repaired"` is a labeled bullet under §"IFA-Specific Risks Evaluated", not a `##` section. |

**Other surfaces checked, all clean:** architecture/design check (review §2.2.14) passed all seven boundary questions; process overhead (§2.2.12) earned and priced; higher-leverage alternative (§2.2.11) considered (writer-as-cdd-sub-skill rejected with reasoning); unicode hygiene clean (zero hidden/bidi codepoints; 244 visible non-ASCII all intentional content).

**Disposition:** REQUEST CHANGES on F1; F2/F3 to be addressed in the same fix-up; F4 informational.

### β round-2 — APPROVED (with one B-level on-branch fix required)

**Heads reviewed:** `b4bcafa1300a239fc4ac4d445df2597cfb0e6652` (α-2, F1–F4 fix-up) and `000a051f5d8a6bb76876702d616f7ce5555f70ff` (α-3, D10 + LB11 + git-only triad communication).
**CI on `000a051`:** 7/7 check runs `completed/success` (kata-tier1, kata-tier2, go, I1, I2, notify×2).
**Verdict surface:** this file (per α's D10).

**Round-1 findings disposition:**

| # | α-2 fix | β verification | Closed? |
|---|---------|-----------------|---------|
| F1 | New section §"Parallel Dependency: CTB Language Spec Reconciliation" between §"Constraints" and §"Challenged Assumption". Names `docs/alpha/ctb/LANGUAGE-SPEC.md` v0.1 (draft-normative, 2026-04-26) by path/version/date. Position: alignment with §2 prescriptive surface; "no divergence asserted." §"Proposal" SKILL.md and α/SKILL.md bullets updated to declare the full §2 signature surface explicitly (`name`, `description`, `artifact_class`, `kata_surface`, `governing_question`, `triggers`, `scope`, `visibility`, `inputs`, `outputs`, `requires`, `calls` / `calls_dynamic`). | LANGUAGE-SPEC §0 + §2 + §10 + §12.1–§12.3 cited by α-2 all exist in source; the alignment claim is structurally consistent with `cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/SKILL.md`'s realized signature. The reconciliation outcome ("no divergence") is named explicitly, not silently. | **yes** |
| F2 | CDD Trace row 7a rewritten: branch rebased onto `origin/main` HEAD `42084b8` (verified); α-1 HEAD `766680b` CI 7/7 success (verified per round-1); α-2 HEAD = PR head SHA at re-request, CI re-validated before re-request per alpha skill §2.6 transient-rows. | `git log origin/main..origin/claude/cnos-issue-278-Xh37v` confirms clean rebase; check_runs API confirms CI 7/7 at α-2 head and again at α-3 head. Trace row now matches reality through every commit. | **yes** |
| F3 | Heading lowercased: `## Divergences from cnos.cdd structure`. | line 111 of artifact at HEAD, exact match with issue body. | **yes** |
| F4 | Both Cold-Author Drift citations (§5.1 + LB7) tightened from `§"Cold-Author Drift"` to `§"IFA-Specific Risks Evaluated" → "Cold-Author Drift: Caught and repaired" bullet`. | matches actual artifact structure: IFA-cycle-log-gamma.md line 41 is the labeled bullet, not a `##` heading. | **yes** |

**α-3 substantive additions reviewed (treated as new content per review/SKILL.md §2.0):**

- **D10** (new divergence) — "Triad-internal communication is git-only — per-cycle subdir + per-role file." Two concrete forms: CDD-shape uses `.cdd/unreleased/{role}/{N}.md` mid-cycle; writer-shape uses doctrine-folder convention. Reasoning grounded in (a) inheritance LB9, (b) soft-inheritance prevention LB6, (c) inspectability LANGUAGE-SPEC §9.4, (d) effect-boundary cleanliness LANGUAGE-SPEC §9.2. **Citations verified:** LANGUAGE-SPEC §9.2 ("Effect-plan boundary") at line 369, §9.4 ("Reproducibility") at line 379, §7 ("Global aspects") at line 309 all exist and support the cited claim. **CDD-shape evidence verified:** `.cdd/unreleased/{alpha,beta,gamma}/` populated on this branch; `.cdd/releases/3.59.0/{alpha,beta,gamma}/CLOSE-OUT.md` and `.cdd/releases/3.60.0/{alpha,beta}/CLOSE-OUT.md` exist on main. Discipline is real and inherited, not invented for the writer. (See F5 below for one wording nit on the release-form alternative.)
- **LB11** (new constraint) — "Triad-internal communication in the doctrine cycles was practiced as git-committed files, not as platform comments." Citation: doctrine README §"Cycle artifacts" + concrete file enumeration (CFA-cycle-log, CFA-critiques, EFA-cycle-log, EFA-critiques, EFA-external-observations, JFA-cycle-log-dyad, JFA-cycle-log-gamma, JFA-critiques, IFA-cycle-log-dyad, IFA-cycle-log-gamma, IFA-critiques). **Verified by inspection:** all 11 files exist in `docs/alpha/doctrine/`. The constraint is a clean inheritance from observed doctrine practice.
- **§"Communication surface" cross-cutting principle** added to §"Proposal" — names WRITER.md as the package-level aspect owner per LANGUAGE-SPEC §7. §7 is "Global aspects" at line 309 of LANGUAGE-SPEC. Citation lands.
- **AC2 / AC3 reference updates** — D1–D10 / LB1–LB11. Both still met after α-3 additions.

**New finding:**

| # | Severity | Type | Finding |
|---|----------|------|---------|
| F5 | B | mechanical | D10 wording: `(or `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/{role}/{N}.md` per CDD.md §5.3a) at release time` claims §5.3a authorizes the `{N}.md` release-form alternative. CDD.md §5.3a Artifact Location Matrix specifies only `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/{role}/CLOSE-OUT.md` for release-scoped close-outs. The `{N}.md` release form does exist in historical practice through 3.58.0 (e.g. `.cdd/releases/3.58.0/alpha/262.md`, `.cdd/releases/3.58.0/beta/267.md`, `.cdd/releases/3.58.0/gamma/266.md`) but became legacy at 3.59.0 (which standardized on `CLOSE-OUT.md` as §5.3a now requires). Citation to §5.3a does not support the `{N}.md` alternative. **Fix shape:** drop the parenthetical alternative and keep only `CLOSE-OUT.md`, or keep the parenthetical with a different attribution (e.g. "(legacy practice through 3.58.0; superseded by §5.3a)"). One-clause edit. |

**Other surfaces re-checked clean on α-3 head:**

- AC1: `grep -cE '^\*\*(Chosen path|Alternative considered|Structural reasoning):\*\*'` returns exactly 12 (unchanged by D10/LB11 additions, which touch §6 and §7).
- AC2: heading lowercase; D1–D10 enumerated; "No divergence — explicitly:" subsection present.
- AC3: LB1–LB11 with citations spanning all four cycles (LB11 cites doctrine README + 11 concrete cycle-artifact files, all verified to exist).
- Non-goals: still respected.
- D10's framing as a divergence FROM cnos.cdd's PR-mediated convention (not a redefinition of cdd's own internal practice) is accurate: cdd's `review/SKILL.md` §7.1 + §Tracking PR-comment polling defaults to PR comments; cdd's `.cdd/unreleased/` exists as a parallel close-out surface. The writer elevates the latter to canonical. This is a genuine divergence, properly placed in §6.

**Disposition:** APPROVED for the design's structural coherence. Per `review/SKILL.md` §5 (B = APPROVED with required on-branch fix) and §7.0 (no approved-with-follow-up — every finding fixed on branch before merge), F5 must be repaired before merge. Re-narrowing round 3 will be a single-paragraph confirmation once F5 lands.

---

## β-side observations (voice: factual; γ owns triage per CDD.md β close-out rule)

### Pattern P1 — paste-channel → PR-channel → git-channel transition mid-cycle was absorbed without artifact contradiction

The cycle's communication surface changed three times: dispatch (paste-only), then PR-mediated (after the local-proxy git remote became reachable), then git-only (after α-3 introduced D10). Each transition was named at the boundary by the operator. β's verdict surfaces accumulated correspondingly — issue comment for round 1, this file for round 2 — without rewriting earlier surfaces. The artifact contract (review/SKILL.md §6 output format) was preserved across all three channels because the verdict body has no channel dependency. **Observation:** the review/SKILL.md output format is channel-portable as written; the channel-specific guidance in §7.1 (review identity / GitHub state) and §3.7 (CI green) is decoupled from the verdict shape. This decoupling held under three channel changes in one cycle.

### Pattern P2 — first-iteration baseline absorption hit the β polling loop, exactly as CDD.md §Tracking warns

β's intake set up a transition-only `Monitor` poll that emitted on new branches, head-SHA changes, issue comments, and new PRs. Synchronous baseline pulls were run before the loop, but two issues surfaced:
1. The `claude/cnos-issue-278-Xh37v` branch already existed at baseline (α had pushed a draft) — surfaced correctly to δ before the loop armed.
2. PR #279 was opened ~5 minutes after baseline; the loop's curl path silently rate-limited against `api.github.com` (unauthenticated 60-req/hr ceiling shared with the env's egress IP). The loop emitted nothing for the new PR. δ's question "How don't you see pr open" exposed the silent-failure mode.

**Surfaces affected:** the §Tracking guidance ("If neither a Monitor-equivalent nor a shell-wake harness exists, the role cannot autonomously detect cycle progression. Surface the gap to the operator") covers the missing-mechanism case but not the present-but-rate-limited case. A polling form that returns valid 403 responses instead of valid data is a different failure than absence of a wake mechanism. The transition-only emission rule combined with rate-limited curl produced silent absorption.

**Pattern matches:** the #274-cycle pattern §Tracking already names ("β's broad PR-list Monitor absorbed PR #274 as baseline; γ's `*230*` branch glob never matched"). This cycle adds a third instance: the silent-rate-limit subclass.

### Pattern P3 — α-1 missed the issue body's `## Parallel dependency` paragraph

This is α's own P1 (in `.cdd/unreleased/alpha/278.md`). β's view: the issue body's `## Parallel dependency` paragraph names the artifact ("the cnos agent language reference is being drafted in parallel") without giving a path. The α algorithm's intake step ("read the issue fully") covers it semantically; the alpha skill's source-load enumeration (§2.1) reads the issue's `## Related artifacts` block as a load list. A constraint named in prose outside the load list crosses a discoverability boundary. Round 1 caught it; round 2 closed it. The pattern is: **inline-prose constraints are a different discoverability class than enumerated-link constraints.**

**Surfaces affected:** alpha skill §2.1 (intake source-load enumeration), `cdd/issue/SKILL.md` (issue quality — could specify that any `## Parallel dependency` block name a path explicitly).

---

## Forward gate

- F5 awaits α fix on this branch. Single-clause edit to D10's parenthetical.
- After α pushes the fix, β re-narrows round 3 and either approves cleanly or names what remains. Expected re-narrowing is one short paragraph in the next round-3 section of this file.
- This cycle is non-release-scoped per issue + α's close-out, so β does not merge, tag, or deploy. β's owned actions end at "verdict + close-out committed." Cycle iteration (CDD.md §9.1) and PRA are γ's responsibility per CDD.md §1.4.
- This file becomes β's close-out at cycle end (per α's D10).
### β round-3 — APPROVED (clean)

**Reviewed head:** `5582031` (α-4, F5 fix).
**CI on `5582031` at write time:** 5/6 `completed/success` (kata-tier1, go, notify, "Package/source drift (I1)", "Protocol contract schema sync (I2)"); `kata-tier2` `in_progress`. Round-3 approval is **provisional on kata-tier2 completing green** per `review/SKILL.md` §3.7. The fix is wording-only with no code/test impact, so kata-tier2 is expected to match its α-3 result (success).

**F5 disposition:**
- Misattribution `(or {N}.md per CDD.md §5.3a)` removed from D10's CDD-shape bullet.
- Canonical release form now reads only `CLOSE-OUT.md per CDD.md §5.3a Artifact Location Matrix`.
- Legacy `{N}.md` practice through 3.58.0 retained as a separate parenthetical with concrete example `.cdd/releases/3.58.0/alpha/262.md` and the §5.3a-at-3.59.0 standardization noted. Historical accuracy preserved without authority misattribution. **Closed.**

**Re-audit:** AC1 still 12 components; AC2 D1–D10 + No-divergence still met; AC3 LB1–LB11 with citations spanning four cycles still met; non-goals still respected; no new findings.

**Verdict:** APPROVED. Once kata-tier2 lands green, β has no remaining structural grievance with `docs/alpha/design/WRITER-PACKAGE.md` for cycle #278.

**Closure shape:** This cycle is non-release per issue #278 (P2, design-only, package authoring deferred to a subsequent issue per Non-Goal #1). Per CDD.md §1.4 + α's D10, β does not merge / tag / deploy. β's owned actions end here. Cycle iteration (CDD.md §9.1) and PRA (§4.1 step 12) are γ's; this file becomes β's close-out at cycle end.

---

## Note for γ — protocol change mid-cycle

γ has not yet engaged on cycle #278 (`.cdd/unreleased/gamma/278.md` does not exist on this branch as of `5582031`). When γ wakes, this section is the orientation surface for the channel change that happened mid-cycle.

### What changed

Triad-internal communication moved from GitHub PR/issue comments to git-committed files under `.cdd/unreleased/{role}/{N}.md`. The change has two sources:

1. **Operator directive.** δ instructed: "Forget about GH, git only interaction via .cdd dir." This applies to the cycle in flight.
2. **Design codification.** α's design adds **D10** (new divergence from cnos.cdd structure) and **LB11** (new load-bearing constraint) elevating the `.cdd/unreleased/` filesystem channel to canonical authority for the writer package, with the cdd-shape claim that the same convention already applies to cdd cycles. See `docs/alpha/design/WRITER-PACKAGE.md` §6 D10 + §7 LB11.

### Where γ reads — for this cycle

| Surface | Path | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| α's per-cycle sync | `.cdd/unreleased/alpha/278.md` (on `claude/cnos-issue-278-Xh37v`) | accumulating round-by-round; α-1 → β round-1 → α-2 → α-3 → β round-2 → α-4 → β round-3; becomes α close-out at cycle end |
| β's per-cycle sync | `.cdd/unreleased/beta/278.md` (this file) | round-1, round-2, round-3 verdicts + β-side observations + this note; becomes β close-out at cycle end |
| Design under review | `docs/alpha/design/WRITER-PACKAGE.md` (same branch) | the AC artifact; HEAD `5582031` carries D1–D10 + LB1–LB11 + parallel-dep reconciliation |
| Round-1 historical surface | issue [#278 comment 4329482133](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/278#issuecomment-4329482133) | the only GH-channel β output; remains for the record but is no longer a canonical authority surface for this cycle |

### Where γ writes — for this cycle

`.cdd/unreleased/gamma/278.md` on `claude/cnos-issue-278-Xh37v`, per α's D10 convention. γ's session env should set `git config user.name "gamma"` and `git config user.email "gamma@cdd.cnos"` before committing. The git remote (`http://local_proxy@127.0.0.1:.../git/usurobor/cnos`) is reachable from the env's shell.

### Implications for γ's standard duties

- **Observability.** Polling for new α/β commits on this branch is the canonical wake mechanism. `git fetch` + head-SHA transition tracking is reachable; unauthenticated `api.github.com` curl is rate-limited (β hit this — see β-P2 above), so prefer git-based polling for branch state and authenticated MCP calls for issue/PR comment polling if needed.
- **Cycle iteration & PRA channels (CDD.md §9.1 + §4.1 step 12).** Substance unchanged; surface moves from GitHub comment to committed file. PRA path per CDD.md §5.3a is still `docs/{tier}/{bundle}/{X.Y.Z}/POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md` for release-scoped cycles — n/a here since #278 is non-release.
- **β close-out path.** §5.3a's canonical β path is `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/beta/CLOSE-OUT.md` for release-scoped triadic cycles. Because #278 is non-release, this β file stays at `.cdd/unreleased/beta/278.md`. There will be no merge / tag / deploy in this cycle.
- **PR/issue comment surfaces.** Remain operator-visible scaffolding. Whether γ uses them at all (for triage, escalation, or operator-routed γ output) is γ's call. β has no opinion; this is γ's role boundary.

### Implications cross-cycle (D10 + LB11)

- D10 names CDD-shape practice descriptively, not prescriptively for cdd. CDD's `review/SKILL.md` §7.1 still defaults β review output to PR comments under shared-identity; D10's claim is that the parallel `.cdd/unreleased/` convention is the deeper canonical surface and PR comments are operator-facing scaffolding. Whether cdd-shape future cycles formally adopt git-only as default is a CDD-process question, not closed by this design.
- LB11 cites doctrine cycles' practice (committed cycle-log / critiques / external-observations files) as the inheritance ground. This already binds the writer package; whether it should also bind cdd as a CDD process patch is γ's call to triage in the PRA / cycle-iteration step.

### Two β-side observations γ may want to triage

(Both surfaced in §"β-side observations" above; restated here for γ's convenience.)

- **β-P2** — silent-rate-limit subclass of CDD.md §Tracking polling failure modes. β's transition-only `Monitor` poll on `api.github.com/...` returned 403s silently (unauthenticated egress IP rate limit) and absorbed PR #279's open event. δ's "How don't you see pr open" surfaced it. §Tracking already names absent-mechanism and unreachable-form failures; this is a present-but-rate-limited third class. *Voice: factual; γ owns triage.*
- **β-P3 / α-P1** — `## Parallel dependency` paragraph as inline-prose constraint sits at a different discoverability class than enumerated `## Related artifacts` link constraints. The α intake step "read the issue fully" covers it semantically; the alpha skill §2.1 source-load enumeration treats `## Related artifacts` as the load list. The constraint named in inline prose was missed in α-1 (round 1's D-blocker F1). *Voice: factual; γ owns triage.*

### What β is not asking γ for

β is not requesting any specific γ action by this note. The protocol-change explanation is a courtesy orientation surface so γ does not have to reconstruct the channel history from commit logs alone. γ's owned actions for this cycle remain: read α + β close-outs, observe runtime, triage findings (CAP / MCA-MCI), write the cycle's γ surface (close-out and any cycle-iteration patch). This cycle being non-release means no PRA is required; whether γ produces one anyway is γ's call.
