# α close-out — cycle/407 (Sub 2 of cnos#403)

α-level findings from the cycle.

## Findings

**None binding.** α encountered no skill-gaps or protocol-gaps that prevented matter production.

## Non-binding observations

**α-Obs-1: AC4 no-duplication audit caught four substantive paragraphs in α's first-pass draft that echoed kernel prose.** α's first draft of CDS.md included:

1. §0 Purpose: a paragraph describing the engineering-vs-research correction-surface asymmetry that essentially paraphrased ROLES.md §4a.2.
2. §Persona/Protocol/Project: a sentence describing Sigma's discipline profile (action-biased / correction-surface-driven / debt-recording) that quoted ROLES.md §4a.4 verbatim.
3. Field 4: a paragraph about δ holding gate authority and V emitting a verdict δ trusts that restated CCNF's kernel step 5 verbatim.
4. Field 6: the α=β collapse argument quoting "order-0 observation masquerading as order-1" from ROLES.md §1 + §4.

α-self-discipline note: the temptation when authoring a structural-mirror document is to also mirror the *prose* of the cited kernel. The AC4 sliding-window audit (mechanical, 50-char windows) caught all four substantive echoes. The α rephrase pass replaced each with an explicit citation to the source-of-truth section plus a CDS-specific qualifier only.

**Skill-gap surfaced?** No — this is α's authoring-discipline observation, not a skill-failure signal. The `cdd/design/SKILL.md §3.2` "one source of truth" principle was the load-bearing skill that prompted the AC4 audit; the skill worked. If a future similar cycle's α does not run the mechanical AC4 audit pre-commit (relying only on intuition that "I cited the source"), the same class of echo would slip through. Filing for ε: candidate `cds-skill-gap` to consider for Sub 3's `alpha/SKILL.md` — "Mechanical AC4 audit (50-char sliding-window scan against named kernel files) before α-commit for any cycle whose matter is doctrinal-contract authoring." Not surfaced as a binding gap (α caught it before commit); recorded for the cdd-iteration as a non-binding observation.

**α-Obs-2: Field 6's β-α-collapse-on-δ permission was a substantive doctrine commitment α had to make.** The empirical practice (cycles #388 through #407+ dispatched under this pattern) was clear, but no prior doctrine surface named the pattern. α's choice: name it as a permitted collapse in Field 6 with stated conditions and configuration-floor consequences. The alternative (leave it out of Field 6 and let Sub 3's `delta/SKILL.md` declare it) would have produced a Field 6 that did not match the empirical anchor. α's reasoning: Field 6's taxonomy must describe the empirical actor configurations, not omit them; the per-cycle operational mechanics still belong in Sub 3.

**α-Obs-3: CDS.md's three-time-scale cadence (per-cycle, per-release, per-wave) in Field 4 is a structural divergence from CDR.** CDR.md Field 4 declares only per-wave cadence because research has no release artifact. CDS has releases, per-merge boundary effections, and multi-cycle waves; the three-time-scale declaration is the engineering-side specialization. α chose to make it explicit in Field 4 rather than defer entirely to Sub 3, because the cadence taxonomy is contract-shape (what δ does), not lifecycle-step procedure (how δ does it).

**α-Obs-4: Length over the 500–700 target.** CDS.md landed at 1040 lines. The excess comes from the per-Field Sub-N-vs-Field-M lines (8 lines × ~5 lines each = 40 lines), the per-Field empirical-anchor spot-checks (6 sections × ~15 lines each = 90 lines), and the per-rationale CDS-side reframings in §"Architecture choice" (5 rationales × ~10 lines = 50 lines). Each excess passage is substantive scope-discipline output (the Sub-N lines pin the contract-vs-operational boundary; the spot-checks bind the contract to the empirical anchor; the reframings comply with AC4). α-self-discipline note: structural-mirror documents have a natural shape that the line target may underestimate. Filing for ε: candidate `cds-skill-gap` to consider for the design/SKILL.md or the issue-body template — "For contract-authoring cycles, the line target should reflect the cited template's actual length (CDR.md is 617 lines; CDS.md mirror is reasonable at 1000+ given the per-Field scope-discipline lines)." Not surfaced as binding gap (issue body explicitly says "target, not a hard ceiling"); recorded for ε observation.

## Skill-loading effectiveness

| Skill | Loaded for | Effective? |
|---|---|---|
| `cdd` | Cycle-level discipline | ✓ Provided the per-cycle artifact convention (gamma-scaffold → self-coherence → beta-review → closeouts → cdd-iteration). |
| `cdd/design` (per #407 issue body) | Contract-shape discipline | ✓ Provided the invariant/volatile/boundaries framing that the 8 Judgment calls in gamma-scaffold use; provided the one-source-of-truth principle (§3.2) that caught the AC4 echoes. |
| `cdd/issue/contract` | AC oracle shape | ✓ Verified each AC has a mechanical or read-check oracle named in the issue body (AC1, AC2, AC3, AC5–AC9 mechanical; AC4 read-check); each oracle produced the expected verification artifact. |
| `cdd/issue/proof` | Proof-plan shape | ✓ Issue body's "Proof plan" section pinned the invariant + surface + oracle + positive/negative cases; α verified each oracle's pass at α-commit time and re-verified at β-review time. |

No skill-load failure. No skill suggested an action that turned out to be wrong. No skill produced a finding that the skill itself was a `cds-skill-gap`.

## Configuration-floor declaration

Per `release/SKILL.md §3.8`, this cycle's γ+α+β-collapsed-on-δ pattern caps both γ-axis and β-axis at A- (γ/δ separation absent; β-α collapse acknowledged per Rule 7). The cap is documented in `gamma-scaffold.md §"Dispatch shape"` and is appropriate for skill/docs-class cycles per the breadth-2026-05-12 wave manifest precedent. α-axis is not capped (α-matter is the cycle's load-bearing deliverable; α's work product is the contract document).

## Closure

α-side closed. No binding findings; four non-binding observations recorded (two as candidate ε observations for future-cycle ε consideration, two as α-self-discipline notes). β review proceeds.
