---
cycle: 364
type: gamma-closeout
date: "2026-05-15"
dispatch_configuration: "§5.2 single-session δ-as-γ (Agent tool unavailable in harness; α/β phases run sequentially with git identity switching and disk-only evidence reads)"
merge_sha: 32b126e4d3dfb702cb8cd8eb2698ae0de49efe34
---

# γ Close-out — #364

## Summary

Articulated the CDD coherence-cell refactor doctrine. Added `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/COHERENCE-CELL.md` as draft refactor doctrine plus the package README pointer. The doctrine names the recursive coherence-cell model (`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 / release/boundary effection) that subsequent CDD refactor cycles must respect.

All 17 ACs verified PASS. Single β review round. Zero findings. Merge at `32b126e4`. `CDD.md` remains the canonical executable algorithm; the new doc is explicitly draft refactor doctrine.

## Close-out triage

| Finding | Source | Type | Disposition | Artifact / commit |
|---------|--------|------|-------------|-------------------|
| Agent tool not surfaced under §5.2 in this harness | α-closeout / β-closeout process observations | tooling-observation (not a CDD protocol gap — it is an environment fact) | drop — disk-based α≠β separation was sufficient for docs-only cycle. If future cycles need stricter Agent-tool isolation under §5.2, future operator dispatch can route to separate `claude -p` invocations per role. No spec patch required; the existing operator/SKILL.md §5.2 already documents that Agent-based sub-agent dispatch is the canonical form and the disk-only alternative is admissible for docs-only work. | — |
| Local-main divergence at merge time (β had to `git reset --hard origin/main`) | β process observations | environment-state-drift (not a CDD protocol gap — worktree session artifact, caught by pre-merge gate row 3) | drop — β pre-merge gate row 3 (non-destructive merge-test in worktree) already catches this class. No spec patch required. | — |
| 17 ACs vs §5.3 escalation criteria (≥7 ACs is a §5.1 multi-session signal) | α implementation observations | sizing-observation | drop with reasoning — the cycle ran under §5.2 per explicit operator authorization, and the docs-only scope (no cross-repo deliverables, no fix rounds, no expected mid-cycle γ judgment calls) made the AC count manageable. The §5.3 criterion is "any of" not "all of"; the existence of 17 ACs nominated §5.1 but the other three criteria did not, and the operator authorized §5.2. The criterion's rationale held — the cycle did remain reliable under §5.2 despite high AC count. No spec patch required; the criterion is a heuristic, not a hard gate. | — |
| AC granularity vs document structure (grep-driven authoring can read as checklist) | α patterns observed | authoring-pattern | drop — α mitigated by embedding required phrases in operative reasoning. The pattern is a property of how high-density AC oracles interact with doctrine authoring, not a CDD protocol gap. Recorded for next-cycle awareness but no patch. | — |

No findings require immediate MCA, project MCI, or agent MCI. All four observations resolve to "drop with explicit reasoning" because none is a CDD protocol gap (`cdd-*-gap`); each is either an environment fact, a heuristic-not-hard-gate signal, or an authoring pattern α self-mitigated.

## §9.1 trigger assessment

| Trigger | Fire condition | Fired this cycle? | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review churn | review rounds > 2 | NO — single R1 APPROVED with zero findings | N/A |
| Mechanical overload | mechanical ratio > 20% AND total findings ≥ 10 | NO — total findings = 0 | N/A |
| Avoidable tooling / environment failure | environment or tooling blocked the cycle in a way a guardrail could likely prevent | NO — Agent tool absence was an environment fact, not a tooling failure; local-main divergence was caught cleanly by the existing pre-merge gate row 3 guardrail | N/A |
| Loaded-skill miss | a loaded skill should have prevented a finding but did not | NO — zero findings; no skill gap surfaced | N/A |

No §9.1 trigger fired.

## Cycle iteration

No `cdd-skill-gap` / `cdd-protocol-gap` / `cdd-tooling-gap` / `cdd-metric-gap` findings surfaced in this cycle. Per `gamma/SKILL.md §2.10` closure-gate row 14 and `epsilon/SKILL.md §1`, `.cdd/unreleased/364/cdd-iteration.md` is **not required** when findings count == 0. The receipt-rule target doctrine articulated in this very cycle (AC13: `protocol_gap_count == 0` means no separate iteration artifact) is honored prospectively here.

No `INDEX.md` row is required (closure-gate row 14 makes INDEX rows optional for cycles with no findings).

## Skill-gap candidate dispositions

No skill-gap candidates surfaced. The skills loaded at scaffold-time (`CDD.md`, `alpha/SKILL.md`, `beta/SKILL.md`, `gamma/SKILL.md`, `operator/SKILL.md`, `cnos.core/skills/design/SKILL.md`) were each sufficient for their phase. The Agent-tool friction is harness-level, not skill-level.

## Process-gap independent check (γ §2.9)

Even with no formal trigger fired, γ asks: did this cycle reveal recurring friction? Was any gate too weak? Did a role skill fail to prevent a predictable error? Did coordination burden suggest a better mechanical path?

- **Recurring friction:** no — single-round APPROVED.
- **Gate weakness:** no — every pre-merge gate row fired and passed; AC oracles caught nothing because there was nothing to catch.
- **Role-skill miss:** no — the loaded skills (`alpha/SKILL.md`, `beta/SKILL.md`, `design/SKILL.md`) each delivered the constraints they encode without gap.
- **Coordination burden:** no — γ executed dispatch in-session under §5.2 with operator authorization; no coordination handoff failures.

The cycle was clean. The doctrine doc 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.

## Deferred outputs

Per AC14 / Practical Landing Order, the following implementation work is deferred to follow-up cycles. None is required by #364; each is documented as deferred debt in `self-coherence.md §Debt` and as a landing-order item in the doctrine doc itself:

1. **CUE schemas** — `receipt.cue` and `contract.cue` design (Landing-Order item 2). Future cycle.
2. **`cn-cdd-verify` receipt-validation implementation** — refactor from artifact-presence to contract/receipt validation (Landing-Order item 3). Future cycle.
3. **δ/operator skill split** — relocate runtime substrate out of `operator/SKILL.md`; possibly rename to `delta/SKILL.md` and shrink to boundary doctrine (Landing-Order item 4). Future cycle.
4. **γ skill shrink** — relocate runtime supervision idioms out of `gamma/SKILL.md` to the harness/platform-driver surface (Landing-Order item 5). Future cycle.
5. **ε relocation** — `ROLES.md`, `cnos.core`, or new protocol-iteration package (Landing-Order item 6; AC17 / Q3). Future cycle.

Resolving any of the five Open Questions (AC17) is also deferred. Specifically:
- **Q1:** When does V fire? (pre-merge / post-merge / both)
- **Q2:** Is V a capability or a command?
- **Q3:** Where does ε relocate?
- **Q4:** How is an override receipted?
- **Q5:** Do existing per-role closeouts become evidence-graph inputs to V?

These are next-cycle inheritance per AC17.

## Hub memory evidence

This cycle is recorded as merged at `32b126e4` on `main`. The cycle directory `.cdd/unreleased/364/` will be moved to `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/364/` at release time per `release/SKILL.md §2.5a` (release deferred — operator instruction).

## Next MCA

Next concrete cycle candidate(s) depend on operator priority. The natural next moves, derived from this cycle's deferred-roadmap output:

1. **Design `receipt.cue` and `contract.cue`** — formalizes the receipt sketch into typed CUE schemas. Lowest-risk, highest-leverage next step because it pins the receipt surface that all subsequent items depend on.
2. **Refactor `cn-cdd-verify` to contract/receipt validation** — depends on (1). Implements `V(contract, receipt, evidence) → verdict`.
3. **Split `operator/SKILL.md`** — relocates runtime substrate; may proceed in parallel with (1) since the substrate-vs-boundary cut is doctrine-defined, not schema-defined.

γ recommendation: (1) is the natural next-MCA because the doctrine doc explicitly defers schema design and AC14 places it as Landing-Order item 2 (immediately after this cycle's COHERENCE-CELL.md add).

## Post-merge verification

Merged at `32b126e4d3dfb702cb8cd8eb2698ae0de49efe34`. The 7-file diff against `origin/main` `d412a1e9` contains exactly the cycle's intended files: COHERENCE-CELL.md (new), README.md (modified), and five `.cdd/unreleased/364/` evidence files (gamma-scaffold, self-coherence, beta-review, alpha-closeout, beta-closeout). Surface containment was clean at merge time and remains clean post-merge.

Post-merge CI verification: deferred — this is a docs-only cycle (no CI gate beyond markdown), and tag/release execution is paused at the release boundary per operator instruction. When release CI runs, it will be observed by δ.

## Closure declaration

Cycle #364 closed at `gamma-closeout.md` commit (this commit, when it lands). Release tag is **NOT** cut per explicit operator instruction (the operator-authorized scope of this session stops at the release boundary — δ tag/release/disconnect is paused for operator decision). γ does not advance to step 17 (δ disconnect release) without operator authorization.

Cycle #364 closed. Next MCA: design `receipt.cue` / `contract.cue` (Landing-Order item 2). Release boundary: pending operator approval.
