<!-- sections: [Verdict, β-α-Collapse Acknowledgment, Contract Integrity, Issue Contract, AC Re-Check, Findings] -->
<!-- completed: [Verdict, β-α-Collapse Acknowledgment, Contract Integrity, Issue Contract, AC Re-Check, Findings] -->

# β Review — Cycle #390

**Verdict:** APPROVED

**Round:** 1
**Fixed this round:** n/a (first review)
**Branch CI state:** local — no CI gate for CDR.md prose (Phase 3 of #366 will introduce schema-side validation; this cycle is docs-only contract authoring).
**origin/main SHA at review time:** `417b6227` (matches session-start; no rebase required)
**Cycle branch head (α review-readiness SHA):** `4eaa1144`
**Merge instruction:** `git merge --no-ff cycle/390` into main with `Closes #390`

---

## §β-α-Collapse Acknowledgment

This cycle ran γ+α+β-collapsed on δ — single Claude Code session, no independent β process. Per breadth-2026-05-12 wave manifest precedent (validated empirically across cycles 375/377/378/388), this is acceptable for **docs-only contract-authoring class** iff β's gates are mechanical (grep / wc / section-presence / forbidden-token sweep) against canonical sources, not subjective judgment.

This cycle's β oracles are all mechanical:

| AC | Oracle | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 | `rg "^### Field" CDR.md \| wc -l` returns 6; `rg -c "TBD" CDR.md` returns 0; release/deploy/tag tokens classified | mechanical |
| AC2 | `## Architecture choice` section present; option (a) named; option (b) rejected; cnos#388 cited | grep + re-read |
| AC3 | `## Persona, Protocol, Project` section present; three layers + canonical homes | grep + re-read |
| AC4 | cph cited as empirical anchor; shape-compat claim present; Sub 4 deferral named | grep + re-read |
| AC5 | forbidden-token sweep `rg "polling\|dispatch\|claude -p\|gh issue"`; persona-identity sweep | mechanical + classification |
| AC6 | read-through walk: Sub 2/3/4 expected scopes citable without re-derivation | re-read |

No AC requires β to exercise judgment α has not already exercised in `self-coherence.md`. The β-α-collapse here is structurally appropriate for docs-only contract authoring.

The non-mechanical β actions performed below:
- Re-reading the research-loss-function language in each field for defensibility against engineering-discipline leak.
- Re-reading the persona/protocol/project boundary for doctrinal-not-operational shape.
- Re-reading the architectural-choice section for faithful (a)-inheritance from cnos#388.
- Read-through walking Sub 2/3/4 expected scopes against CDR.md as their doctrinal anchor.

---

## §Contract Integrity

| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Status truth preserved | yes | Issue #390 OPEN; cycle in-progress; no false-closure signals |
| Canonical sources/paths verified | yes | `ROLES.md §3`, `§4a`, `§4a.2`, `§4a.3`, `§7`, `schemas/cdr/receipt.cue`, `schemas/cdd/README.md §"Architectural choice"`, essay `§"Separate persona, protocol, and project"` + `§"Wave 4 — CDR bootstrap"` — all cited paths resolve on branch |
| Scope/non-goals consistent | yes | Sub 2/3/4 explicitly out-of-scope; cph mapping deferred to Sub 4; ROLES not redefined |
| Constraint strata consistent | yes | ACs distinguishable; AC5 token sweep classification rules consistent |
| Exceptions field-specific/reasoned | yes | AC5 hits in disavowing/doctrinal/schema-ref contexts named explicitly |
| Path resolution base explicit | yes | Base SHA `417b6227` in gamma-scaffold; α SHA = `4eaa1144` |
| Proof shape adequate | yes | All 6 ACs have mechanical oracle evidence with line numbers |
| Cross-surface projections updated | yes | `schemas/cdd/README.md §"Architectural choice"` already records cnos#376 AC7 cross-reference (from cnos#388); CDR.md cites it back; gamma-closeout plans the cnos#376 close-out comment |
| No witness theater / false closure | yes | Every AC oracle was actually executed and recorded; AC5 token sweep classification covers every hit |
| PR body matches branch files | n/a | CDD triadic protocol — no PR |
| γ artifacts present (gamma-scaffold.md) | yes | `.cdd/unreleased/390/gamma-scaffold.md` present on `origin/cycle/390` after push (commit `4eaa1144`) |

---

## §Issue Contract

### AC Coverage

| AC | Status | Evidence locus |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 — Six fields declared per ROLES.md §3 | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC1; CDR.md lines 244–494 |
| AC2 — Architecture-choice section declared | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC2; CDR.md lines 55–149 |
| AC3 — Persona/protocol/project boundary section declared | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC3; CDR.md lines 154–230 |
| AC4 — Empirical anchor validation | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC4; CDR.md lines 495–547 |
| AC5 — No surface fusion | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC5; CDR.md (entire normative text) |
| AC6 — Sub 2/3/4 inheritance ready | ✓ met | self-coherence.md §ACs AC6 read-through walk |

### Active design constraints honoured

- **Six-field contract per ROLES.md §3** — six `### Field N` subsections present; no TBD; research-loss-function language per field.
- **Research-loss-function language per ROLES.md §4a.2** — β oracle (Field 2) explicitly rejects engineering's "compiles + tests pass"; δ cadence (Field 4) explicitly disavows release/tag/deploy; ε triggers (Field 5) are research-failure classes; α=β rule (Field 6) names research-class rationale and explicitly disavows engineering-class collapse transfer.
- **Architecture (a) inheritance** — recorded with explicit (b)-rejected statement; cnos#388 cited as source.
- **Persona/protocol/project boundary per ROLES.md §4a** — three layers, three canonical homes; doctrinal not operational.
- **No surface fusion per cnos#376 AC4** — no runtime mechanics, no persona identity, no project-specific gates.

---

## §AC Re-Check (mechanical, run against `cycle/390` HEAD `4eaa1144`)

**AC1 — Six fields declared:**
- `rg "^### Field" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md | wc -l` → `6` ✓
- `rg -c "TBD" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → `0` ✓
- `rg -n "release|deploy|tag" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → 6 hits at lines 372, 373, 375, 388, 443, 524. β-classification of each:
  - **372–375 (Field 4 normative):** "**The cadence is gate-transition-shaped, not release-shaped.** A CDR δ does not 'cut a release' or 'tag a deploy' — a research wave concludes when a gate verdict is recorded in the receipt. The receipt is the artifact; there is no release-bundle artifact in the engineering sense." — **disavowing context**, normative as an explicit rejection. ✓
  - **388 (Field 4 normative):** "The trigger for δ to open the next wave is **gate-transition**, not calendar or release-bundle:" — **disavowing context**. ✓
  - **443 (Field 5 normative):** "The trigger is 'at least one finding tagged with one of the classes above'" — `tagged` here means "labelled with a trigger-class" (label-tag), not release-tag. Distinct semantic. ✓
  - **524 (§Empirical anchor):** "cph's wave sequencing is gate-transition-shaped, not release-shaped." — **disavowing context**. ✓
  - Zero hits embed release/deploy/tag as the CDR δ cadence or as research-protocol verbs. AC1 oracle ("matches only in cross-references or non-CDR-δ contexts") satisfied. ✓

**AC2 — Architecture-choice section:**
- `grep -n "^## Architecture choice" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → `55:## Architecture choice` ✓
- `grep -n "Option (a)\|Option (b)" CDR.md` → line 66 (Option (a) named), line 93 (Option (b) rejected) ✓
- `grep -n "cnos#388\|cnos#376" CDR.md` → multiple matches including the cnos#388 design-source citation and the cnos#376 AC7 cross-reference ✓
- Rationale (1)–(5) enumerated at lines 95–117. ✓

**AC3 — Persona/Protocol/Project boundary section:**
- `grep -n "^## Persona, Protocol, Project" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → `154:## Persona, Protocol, Project` ✓
- Three layers with canonical homes at lines 164 (Layer 1 — `cn-rho/spec/`), 182 (Layer 2 — `cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/`), 201 (Layer 3 — `<project>/.cdr/`). ✓
- "Rho is not CDR" + "CDR is not a persona" + "CDR.md does not author project-specific bindings" all present. ✓

**AC4 — Empirical anchor:**
- `grep -n "^## Empirical anchor" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → `495:## Empirical anchor` ✓
- `grep -c "cph\|usurobor/cph" CDR.md` → 23 hits ✓
- Shape-compatibility claim with spot-checks at lines 506–530. ✓
- Detailed mapping deferred to Sub 4 at lines 542–547. ✓
- No cph-local prose embedded. ✓

**AC5 — No surface fusion:**
- `rg "polling|dispatch|claude -p|gh issue" src/packages/cnos.cdr/skills/cdr/CDR.md` → 7 hits, all classified by α in self-coherence.md §ACs AC5. β re-classifies independently:
  1. Line 156 — `(dispatch, polling, repo wiring) belong in role-overlay skills` — **non-goal disclaimer in §Persona, Protocol, Project intro**. ✓
  2. Line 277 — `dispatch boundary (per ROLES.md §4a.2)` — **doctrinal citation** to ROLES.md's dispatch-boundary concept. ✓
  3. Line 322 — `action: repair_dispatch` — **schema-enum reference** to `#BoundaryDecision.action`. ✓
  4. Line 369 — `δ selects a new research gap and dispatches a new wave` — **doctrinal verb** from `ROLES.md §1`. ✓
  5. Line 380 — `dispatches α + β` — **doctrinal verb**. ✓
  6. Line 611 — `Specify runtime mechanics (dispatch, polling, git wiring, CI hooks)` — **non-goal disclaimer**. ✓
  7. Line 614 — `protocol_id dispatch per [schemas/cdd/README.md]` — **schema cross-reference**. ✓
  All hits classified as disclaimers / doctrinal citations / schema cross-references. None embed runtime mechanics. ✓
- `rg -i "I am Rho|my voice|as Rho" CDR.md` → 1 hit at line 175–176 within the explicit prohibition statement ("CDR.md does not state 'I am Rho' or 'my voice'"). This is the disavowing statement, not persona content. ✓
- Project-specific gate values: no cph-specific threshold values, dataset paths, or local definitions in normative text. cph's gate verdicts (`bounded GO`, `partial GO`, etc.) appear in §Empirical anchor as *project-naming-variant labels* mapped onto doctrinal vocabulary — they are cited, not defined. ✓

**AC6 — Sub 2/3/4 inheritance ready:**
β walks each Sub-N's expected scope:
- **Sub 2 package skeleton** can author `cn.package.json` citing CDR.md placement and architectural inheritance; `README.md` citing §0 Purpose and §Architecture choice; root `SKILL.md` citing the six-field structure. No re-derivation needed. ✓
- **Sub 3 role overlays** can author each role-skill citing the corresponding `### Field N` subsection: `alpha/SKILL.md` cites Field 1; `beta/SKILL.md` cites Field 2; `gamma/SKILL.md` cites Field 3 + the typed schema; `delta/SKILL.md` cites Field 4 cadence + Field 6 collapse rule; `epsilon/SKILL.md` cites Field 5 trigger classes. No re-derivation needed. ✓
- **Sub 4 empirical-anchor doc** can map cph artifacts surface-by-surface against the shape-compatibility claim's six-field structure. The doctrinal target is fixed; Sub 4 verifies on cph artifacts. ✓

---

## §Findings

### Observation 1 — research-loss-function language is consistent across all six fields

Each field rejects engineering-discipline leak explicitly:
- Field 1 ("CDR does not produce software artifacts as matter") routes software-evidence to CDS.
- Field 2 ("Engineering's 'compiles + tests pass' oracle does not apply") names the loss-function divergence.
- Field 4 ("not release-shaped... no release-bundle artifact") rejects software δ vocabulary.
- Field 5 trigger classes are entirely research-failure classes; no CI-flake / test-failure / deploy-drift triggers.
- Field 6 ("Engineering-class collapse precedents... do **not** transfer") explicitly forbids cross-discipline waiver inheritance.

The discipline is consistently held. No finding.

### Observation 2 — architectural-choice section is a faithful inheritance, not a re-derivation

The section cites cnos#388 + `schemas/cdd/README.md §"Architectural choice"` for the rationale-source; transposes the five rationale points to skills with skill-specific examples (engineering α vs research α; per-protocol skill files; future c-d-X like cdw/cda); explicitly invokes the "decision-once-applied-twice" property as rationale 5. The inheritance is honoured without duplicative re-derivation. No finding.

### Observation 3 — persona/protocol/project boundary is doctrinal, not operational

The three layers are stated as: (i) what kind of mind (persona); (ii) what counts as valid work in the domain (protocol overlay); (iii) what concrete artifacts apply (project binding). No operational mechanics (dispatch wiring, polling forms, git identities, CI hooks) appear in the section. The "Why this matters" subsection names the leakage to avoid abstractly. No finding.

### Observation 4 — cph citation is path-only; no prose embedding

cph paths are listed in §Empirical anchor as canonical-path references; cph's gate verdicts appear as project-naming variants of doctrinal vocabulary, not as canonical definitions; no cph-local prose is reproduced. The refusal-condition discipline (no surface fusion via cph embedding) is honoured. No finding.

### Observation 5 — AC5 token sweep classification is exhaustive

Every hit of `polling|dispatch|claude -p|gh issue` is classified by α in self-coherence.md and re-classified by β here. The hits split cleanly into: (i) non-goal disclaimers ("operational mechanics... belong in role-overlay skills"); (ii) doctrinal verbs from `ROLES.md §1` ("δ... dispatches"); (iii) schema-enum / schema cross-references (`repair_dispatch`, `protocol_id` dispatch convention). No hit embeds runtime mechanics. The classification is robust to AC5's intent. No finding.

### Observation 6 — Field 5 trigger classes are exhaustive of the issue's enumeration

The issue (#390 AC5) names six trigger classes explicitly: missing data gates, overclaiming, unreproducible numbers, weak citation discipline, recurring oracle ambiguity, construct drift. CDR.md Field 5 names all six in order. No finding.

### Observation 7 — Field 6 collapse rule's research-class waiver-rejection is explicit

CDR.md Field 6 names α=β never-permitted for research claims with explicit research-specific rationale ("α reviewing α's own claims for overclaim is order-0 observation"); explicitly states "Engineering-class collapse precedents... do **not** transfer" — this is the load-bearing statement that prevents the same-session collapse pattern (which this cycle itself uses for docs-only contract authoring) from being misread as a research-class waiver template. The discipline is held. No finding.

### Borderline — γ+α+β-collapsed on δ for this cycle vs Field 6 prohibition

A borderline observation, not a finding: this cycle (#390) runs γ+α+β-collapsed on δ, which collapses α and β. CDR.md Field 6 names α=β as never-permitted for **research claims**. The reconciliation: CDR.md is **doctrinal contract authoring**, not a research claim. The cycle's matter (a doctrinal markdown declaration) does not assert a research observation, computation, inference, or hypothesis; the receipt-stream signal ε reads (Field 5) does not apply to this cycle because no `#CDRReceipt` is being authored. The cycle is structurally CDS-shaped (docs-only contract authoring under repairable feedback — the file can be revised in a follow-on cycle if Sub 2/3/4 find defects); the β-α-collapse precedent that applies is the breadth-2026-05-12 wave manifest precedent, not a CDR-class waiver. β notes the borderline but no finding: the cycle's class is correctly identified, and Field 6's rule is not violated because Field 6 governs research-claim cycles, not protocol-doctrine authoring cycles.

---

## §Verdict (β statement)

All six ACs pass on their mechanical oracles. Research-loss-function language is consistently held across all fields. Architectural choice is a faithful inheritance from cnos#388. Persona/protocol/project boundary is doctrinal, not operational. cph citation is path-only. No surface fusion. Sub 2/3/4 inheritance ready.

**APPROVE — Round 1, no fix-round.**

β proceeds to merge per the merge instruction above. γ will then write close-outs, cdd-iteration.md, and post the cnos#376 close-out comment.
