<!-- sections: [Review Summary, Implementation Assessment, Technical Review, Process Observations, Release Notes] -->
<!-- completed: [Review Summary, Implementation Assessment, Technical Review, Process Observations, Release Notes] -->

---
cycle: 367
role: beta
issue: "https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/367"
date: "2026-05-15"
verdict: APPROVE
rounds: 1
merge_sha: "37ac1c7592e35ac0832156162434da544ee9d7c0"
base_sha_origin_main_at_merge: "ffdd77acab2fcfa7670b4c2d77f1dc305fcff76b"
head_sha_cycle_at_merge: "87da7f1f"
---

# β Close-out — #367

## Review Summary

Single review round. R1 → APPROVE. All 9 ACs PASS with evidence mapped in `beta-review.md`. Pre-merge gate rows 1–4 all clear. Zero findings raised.

Target artifact: `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md` (632L, new). Phase 1 of #366 roadmap. Resolves the five Open Questions seeded by `COHERENCE-CELL.md` (#364) and freezes the parent-facing validation interface at doctrine level.

Merge: `git merge --no-ff origin/cycle/367` into `main`, landed at `37ac1c75`. Cycle branch retained; δ owns disconnect.

## Implementation Assessment

The design surface delivers what the issue contracted for, and the load-bearing structural claims are anchored at multiple points in the doc rather than only in section headers.

**Decisive over exhaustive (issue §Active design constraints).** Each `## Q{n}` opens with a single chosen position, justifies it, names the structural consequence, then moves on. The doc reads as design prose, not as a five-row answer table — which is what γ flagged as a #364-PRA-carryover concern in scaffold §8 (AC-as-checklist drift). α executed the discipline correctly.

**The verdict/decision distinction (AC8) is the load-bearing claim and α treats it as such.** The distinction surfaces in four independent places:
1. §Validation Interface §"`ValidationVerdict` vs `BoundaryDecision`" table (lines 463–467) — names emitter, what each describes, which receipt block each lives in.
2. Three explicit constraints (lines 470–474) — V does not record boundary decisions; δ does not rewrite ValidationVerdict; PASS-equivalence is the conjunction.
3. Illustrative FAIL/override example (lines 533–547) — shows `Receipt.validation = ValidationVerdict (FAIL) — UNCHANGED` while `Receipt.boundary.override` is populated. The example does the structural work; a reader who walks the FAIL case sees the two surfaces stay independent.
4. §Q4's downstream-consumer detection rule (lines 300–314) — biconditional form: PASS-equivalence ⇔ `validation.result == PASS AND boundary.override == null`.

Anchoring at four points means the doctrine survives drift attempts: an implementation cycle that tries to fuse the surfaces would have to re-author all four locations to make the fusion stick.

**Override discipline (AC6/Q4) is anchored downstream.** The override's role as a "degraded boundary action, not a form of validity" (line 257) is stated; "never rewrites the `ValidationVerdict`" (line 292), "never substitutes for PASS in downstream consumers" (line 293), and "never emits `OVERRIDE-PASS`" (line 294) are each explicit failure modes. The downstream-consumer detection rule is included not only by name (the required field at line 284) but also as biconditional rule prose (lines 300–314) — so the implementation cycle inherits the rule by reading the doctrine surface, not by inferring it from field presence.

**The receipt-vs-five-files separation (AC7/Q5) is structural, not aesthetic.** α answers Q5 by typing each of the five files (table at lines 343–348) and routing them as evidence-graph / derivation sources rather than parent-facing artifacts. None is deprecated — the in-cell coordination surface is preserved; what changes is what crosses the boundary. The derivation rule (lines 354–371) commits the design to `derive_receipt` being a function over evidence rather than a free-text artifact γ writes — which is what makes the receipt typed in the first place. Phase 5 (γ shrink) inherits that γ continues to produce `gamma-closeout.md` even after γ shrinks; this design protects that downstream constraint.

**Phase inheritance map (§Closure table, lines 624–630).** α made each downstream Phase's inheritance explicit. This is unusual for a docs-only design surface — typically the next-phase issue derives its scope-pointer relationship on its own — but in this case it directly serves the issue's stated impact ("Phases 2–7 become straightforward implementation cycles whose contracts can be cited rather than re-derived"). The next Phase 2 issue can cite §Validation Interface + §Q4 + §Q5 verbatim; Phase 3 cites §Q1 + §Q2 + §Validation Interface; Phase 4 cites §Q1 + §Q2 + §Q4; Phase 5 cites §Q1 + §Q5; Phase 6 cites §Q3; Phase 7 cites §Q1 + §Validation Interface. The map is what carries the receptor-before-membrane discipline forward.

## Technical Review

### Surface containment (AC9)

`git diff origin/main..HEAD --stat` at review-pass start showed exactly:

```
 .cdd/unreleased/367/alpha-codex-prompt.md          |  35 ++
 .cdd/unreleased/367/beta-codex-prompt.md           |  32 ++
 .cdd/unreleased/367/gamma-scaffold.md              | 145 +++++
 .cdd/unreleased/367/self-coherence.md              |  66 +++
 .../cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md      | 632 +++++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 910 insertions(+)
```

Exactly the allowed set {`RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md` (A), `.cdd/unreleased/367/*.md`}. No prohibited file touched: zero `.cue`, zero edits under `commands/cdd-verify/`, zero edits to `operator/SKILL.md` / `gamma/SKILL.md` / `epsilon/SKILL.md` / `CDD.md` / `ROLES.md` / `COHERENCE-CELL.md`.

The post-review-add of `.cdd/unreleased/367/beta-review.md` does not change the surface-containment property: it is allowed cycle evidence under `.cdd/unreleased/367/*.md`, and β-authored cycle evidence at review time is the standard CDD shape.

### `.cue` token audit

The `.cue` token appears in the doc five times, each is a *negative* reference, never schema syntax inside §Validation Interface:

- line 47: "It does not pin schema syntax — no `.cue`."
- line 393: "**Schema syntax is Phase 2** — the shapes below are prose plus minimal illustrative examples, not `.cue` definitions."
- line 480: "the shape this example sketches is `.cue`-compatible-ish but is not `.cue`"
- line 591: "Any `.cue` file (Phase 2 work)" (in §Non-goals)
- line 625: "Phase 2 — `receipt.cue` + `contract.cue`" (in §Closure phase-inheritance table — naming the Phase 2 target file shape)

No `.cue` *syntax* (e.g., `#Foo: { x: int }` field definitions) appears in the illustrative example. The example uses prose-tabular curly-brace indented fields. AC8's "no `.cue` syntax" requirement is met.

### Pre-merge gate (cycle-relevant detail)

Row 3 (non-destructive merge-test) was non-collapsible despite the docs-only modifier — `beta/SKILL.md` carves the collapse only for cycles that "do not ship new contract surface." `RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md` is doctrine-level contract surface for Phases 2–7, so row 3 was executed in full. The worktree-local `git config --worktree user.{name,email}` was set explicitly to avoid the cycle #301 O8 shared-config-leak failure mode.

The merge tree diff confirmed exactly the allowed five files; zero unmerged paths.

## Process Observations

### α SIGTERM recovery via δ

α was SIGTERM'd after committing all 8 doc-content commits (`e3d78411..a27abba1`, totaling the 632L `RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md`) but before writing `self-coherence.md`. δ wrote `self-coherence.md` as a recovery wrapper per `operator/SKILL.md` §timeout-recovery, disclosed at the file's frontmatter `note:` and §Debt row 1.

β reads this as structurally sound for two reasons:
1. **Doc content is uncontaminated.** All 8 commits authoring the design surface are α-authored (commits `e3d78411..a27abba1`). δ's recovery scope was limited to the evidence wrapper — `self-coherence.md` does not extend the design surface, it inventories what α already shipped.
2. **β authorship surfaces are clean.** β did not author α-side artifacts; β did not invent acceptance evidence; β only ran the AC oracles against α's committed content. Recovery did not blur α/β separation.

The disclosure is in-artifact (not in a side channel), which is the right shape. γ's PRA can decide whether the SIGTERM-then-δ-recovery pattern surfaces a protocol gap worth ε-attention; β does not classify this here.

### Round count

R1 → APPROVE. Single review round matches the docs-only convention target (≤1, per #364 precedent). No RC, no fix dispatch. The eight γ-flagged failure modes were each independently checked and all were clear.

### γ-scaffold quality

The γ-scaffold AC posture summary (lines 71–90 of `gamma-scaffold.md`) compressed each AC into 1–3 sentences naming the load-bearing predicate and the explicit failure mode. The eight γ-flagged failure modes (§Failure modes, lines 122–138) were the operative review checklist — β verified each independently against the doc. The scaffold was high-leverage; β's review compute amortized over γ's framing.

### Surface drift sensitivity

The doc has a built-in resistance to drift toward implementation. Three locations explicitly state what the design does *not* commit to:
- §Q2 "What the design does not commit to" (lines 190–197)
- §Validation Interface "What Phase 2 chooses" / "What Phase 2 does not change" (lines 552–571)
- §Non-goals (lines 580–610)

Each of these scopes the design contract toward shape rather than syntax. A future implementation cycle that wants to amend the interface will read these as "amend here, then propose" rather than "extend silently."

## Release Notes

This cycle is **docs-only design surface** — no operator-visible runtime behavior change.

**Adds:**
- `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/RECEIPT-VALIDATION.md` (632L) — design surface for the parent-facing CDD validation receptor. Resolves the five Open Questions from #364; freezes the validation interface at doctrine level. Sibling to `COHERENCE-CELL.md` and `CDD.md`. Becomes binding when Phase 3 (#366 roadmap) implements `V` as a working predicate.

**Does not change:**
- `COHERENCE-CELL.md` doctrine (predecessor; remains source of truth for *what the cell is*)
- `CDD.md` canonical algorithm
- `cn-cdd-verify` command (Phase 3 will refactor)
- `operator/SKILL.md`, `gamma/SKILL.md`, `epsilon/SKILL.md`, `ROLES.md` (Phases 4–6 will rewrite/relocate)

**Downstream cycles unblocked (per #366 roadmap):**
- Phase 2 — `.cue` schema design — has its input contract (§Validation Interface + §Q4 + §Q5)
- Phase 3 — `cn-cdd-verify` refactor — has its predicate signature (§Q1 + §Q2 + §Validation Interface)
- Phase 4 — δ split — has its receptor target (§Q1 + §Q2 + §Q4)
- Phase 5 — γ shrink — has its preserved-input constraint (§Q5)
- Phase 6 — ε relocation — has its target (§Q3 → `ROLES.md`)
- Phase 7 — `CDD.md` rewrite — has its citation points (§Q1 + §Validation Interface)

**Release boundary:** δ owns tag/version/disconnect. β does not tag, does not bump versions, does not move `.cdd/unreleased/367/` to `.cdd/releases/{X.Y.Z}/367/`, does not delete the cycle branch. β's authority ends at merge + close-out; δ takes over.

**γ handoff:** PRA can use `beta-review.md` (per-AC matrix + γ-flag check), this file (process observations + recovery disclosure), and `gamma-closeout.md` (γ will author next) as the cycle's β-side evidence inputs.
