# β Review — Cycle #354

**Verdict:** APPROVED

**Round:** 1
**Fixed this round:** n/a (initial implementation)
**Branch CI state:** Green (all workflows completed/success)
**Base SHA:** 77a1c024 (current origin/main)  
**Head SHA:** 83c8303d (cycle/354)
**Merge instruction:** `git merge cycle/354` into main with `Closes #354`

## §2.0.0 Contract Integrity

| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Status truth preserved | yes | Issue correctly distinguishes existing CI polling (β rule 3.10, γ §2.7) from missing δ polling. No false claims about current enforcement. |
| Canonical sources/paths verified | yes | AC evidence references verified: `operator/SKILL.md:49` step 6 ✓, `operator/SKILL.md` §3.4 step 4 ✓, `release/SKILL.md` §2.7 ✓ |
| Scope/non-goals consistent | yes | Docs-only mode, clearly scoped to adding CI polling to δ role. No scope creep or contradictions. |
| Constraint strata consistent | n/a | No strata defined in this issue |
| Exceptions field-specific/reasoned | n/a | No exceptions claimed |
| Path resolution base explicit | yes | File paths are repo-root relative, consistent with CDD convention |
| Proof shape adequate | yes | For docs-only amendment, proof is the textual change itself. No runtime enforcement claimed, appropriately scoped. |
| Cross-surface projections updated | yes | AC4 cross-reference from release/SKILL.md to operator/SKILL.md verified present |
| No witness theater / false closure | yes | Adds process prescription, not enforcement. Appropriately scoped for docs-only mode. |
| PR body matches branch files | n/a | CDD cycle uses self-coherence.md, which matches the diff |

**Phase 1 complete - proceeding to implementation review**

## §2.0 Issue Contract

### AC Coverage
| # | AC | In diff? | Status | Notes |
|---|----|----------|--------|-------|
| AC1 | `operator/SKILL.md` §Gate (step 6) amended: after tag push, δ runs `gh run list --branch <tag>` and waits for release workflow completion | yes | met | Line 49 step 6 amended with CI polling requirement |
| AC2 | Release CI red → δ reports failure, does not declare release done, triggers investigation | yes | met | Line 49 step 6 includes "Release CI red → δ reports failure, does not declare release done, triggers investigation" |
| AC3 | Release CI green → δ declares release complete | yes | met | Line 49 step 6 includes "Release CI green → δ declares release complete" |
| AC4 | Cross-reference from `release/SKILL.md` to the new gate step | yes | met | Line 236 in release/SKILL.md §2.7: "δ owns release CI polling per `operator/SKILL.md` §3.4 step 4" |
| AC5 | Self-applied on the cycle that lands this patch | pending | pending | Will be verified in β close-out when this cycle self-applies the new process |

### Named Doc Updates
| Doc / File | In diff? | Status | Notes |
|------------|----------|--------|-------|
| `operator/SKILL.md` | yes | updated | Primary target - algorithm step 6 and §3.4 step 4 updated |
| `release/SKILL.md` | yes | updated | Cross-reference added in §2.7 |

### CDD Artifact Contract
| Artifact | Required? | Present? | Notes |
|----------|-----------|----------|-------|
| `self-coherence.md` | yes (docs-only) | yes | Complete with all required sections, review-readiness signaled |
| Bootstrap stubs | no (docs-only exemption) | n/a | Docs-only mode per CDD.md §5.3 |
| Design artifact | no (explicitly not required) | n/a | Single amendment, no new contract surface per self-coherence |
| Plan artifact | no (explicitly not required) | n/a | Straightforward text amendment per self-coherence |

### Active Skill Consistency
| Skill | Required by | Loaded? | Applied? | Notes |
|-------|-------------|---------|----------|-------|
| `write/SKILL.md` | Tier 3 (issue-specific) | yes | yes | Applied to coherent documentation amendment, evidenced in CDD Trace step 5 |
| `cdd/alpha/SKILL.md` | Tier 1a (always) | yes | yes | α role surface followed throughout implementation |
| `CDD.md` | Tier 1a (always) | yes | yes | Canonical lifecycle referenced and followed |

**Phase 2a complete - all ACs met, required artifacts present, skills consistently applied**

## §2.1 Diff and Context Inspection

### Mechanical Scan Results
- **Structural closure**: n/a (no structural prevention claims)
- **Multi-format parity**: ✓ CI polling described consistently in algorithm step 6 and detailed in §3.4
- **Snapshot consistency**: n/a (no snapshot tests affected)
- **Stale-path validation**: n/a (no files moved/renamed/deleted)  
- **Branch naming**: ✓ `cycle/354` follows canonical format per CDD.md §4.2
- **Execution timeline**: n/a (no state-changing code paths)
- **Derivation vs validation**: n/a (no single source of truth claims being made)

### Authority Surface Conflicts
✓ **No conflicts detected**:
- `operator/SKILL.md` algorithm step 6 and §3.4 step 4 are consistent
- `release/SKILL.md` §2.7 correctly cross-references `operator/SKILL.md` §3.4 step 4  
- Self-coherence evidence matches actual diff locations

### Architecture Leverage Check
✓ **Appropriate level**: This completes the triad of CI polling gates (β rule 3.10, γ §2.7, now δ §3.4). The architecture is to have each role verify CI before critical transitions. This fills the δ/release gap symmetrically.

### Process Overhead Check  
✓ **Justified overhead**: 
- **Failure prevented**: Silent release CI failures (evidenced by v3.66.0 binary version-pin mismatch)
- **Who uses**: δ must act on CI red before declaring release complete
- **Automation potential**: CI polling is appropriately manual - δ needs judgment on failure investigation

### Design Constraints Check
✓ **No constraints violated**: Docs-only amendment preserves existing δ authority over release boundary, adds monitoring discipline.

## Architecture Check

| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Reason to change preserved | yes | `operator/SKILL.md` remains focused on δ orchestration, `release/SKILL.md` remains focused on release process. CI polling is properly δ responsibility. |
| Policy above detail preserved | yes | Policy (δ must poll CI, not declare release done on red) remains in core skill, not implementation detail |
| Interfaces remain truthful | yes | δ role interface truthfully declares CI polling responsibility after tag push |
| Registry model remains unified | n/a | No registry changes in this diff |
| Source/artifact/installed boundary preserved | n/a | No source/artifact/installed flow changes |
| Runtime surfaces remain distinct | yes | β, γ, δ CI polling responsibilities remain distinct: β polls cycle CI before approval, γ polls post-merge CI before close-out, δ polls release CI before disconnect |
| Degraded paths visible and testable | yes | CI red handling explicitly defined: "δ reports failure, does not declare release done, triggers investigation" |

**Phase 2 implementation review complete - no architectural violations**

## Findings

| # | Finding | Evidence | Severity | Type |
|---|---------|----------|----------|------|
| - | No findings | All ACs met, contract intact, architecture preserved | - | - |

## CI Status
✅ **All required workflows green on review SHA 83c8303d**
- Build: completed/success (verified via `gh run list --branch cycle/354`)
- No branch protection rules configured, defaulting to "every workflow that runs on cycle branch"  
- CI-green gate (review rule 3.10) satisfied

## Notes
Clean docs-only implementation completing the triad of CI polling gates across β, γ, and δ roles. The change is well-scoped, properly cross-referenced, and addresses a real operational gap evidenced by v3.66.0 release failure.