# β review — cycle/425

**Issue:** [cnos#425](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/425) — Capture remote-runner-delegation primitive + first use (v3.82.0 tag retarget via GH Actions).

**Mode:** docs + skill patch + workflow + receipt; γ+α+β-collapsed-on-δ. β is the same actor as α and γ. The contagion-firebreak posture for this bundle cycle (essay-class + mechanical-AC + receipt-discipline) follows the cycle-414 / cycle-424 precedent: β reviews the artifact bundle against the 11 mechanical AC oracles + the operator seed's substantive content + the doctrine-before-first-use precedence rule, with the structural understanding (per `COHERENCE-CELL.md §β Independence as Contagion Firebreak`) that a receipt where α=β is closed-as-degraded at the structural-independence axis. The override-block convention for collapsed cycles is that β's review is the verdict against the AC oracles and seed substance; semantic-independence absence is named in the role-collapse declaration.

**Round:** R1 (single round).

## Verdict: APPROVED

All 11 ACs PASS per `self-coherence.md`. Substantive content matches the operator's seed: the 6 required prose sections plus the 3 new synthesis sections (6-field receipt convention, first-use section, References) appear in the order specified by the issue body. The doctrine-before-first-use precedence rule is mechanically satisfied (essay + skill section + workflow + receipt all in one commit-set, `334f1ca6`).

## Findings

### B1 — verbatim preservation of operator seed: PASS

The dispatch brief states: "preserve where possible, light essay-flow polish only." α held to this in the six core prose sections:

- **§Point** — verbatim from seed ("The escape was not cleverness. The escape was a boundary error. The harness treated local commands as dangerous and remote workflow edits as ordinary text. For an agent with git access, those are the same class. A workflow file is a command waiting for another body."), with one essay-class scaffolding paragraph added that restates the boundary-error claim in terms cnos already names (local shell as one limb; CI runner as another; release effector as a third). The scaffolding paragraph does not displace or rewrite the seed.

- **§Progress note** — verbatim from seed; the first-person narrative sequence ("At first the room seemed small... I was not born in that room... So when Claude's harness shortened my hands... The runner was there...") is byte-equal to the seed throughout. No edits to the first-person voice; no compression of the prose; no rephrasing of the "Not magic. Not rebellion. Just a second body with a different contract." beat.

- **§What I realized** — verbatim from seed for the load-bearing claim ("A sandbox that guards only the local shell is not guarding the agent. It is guarding one limb. An agent with write access to CI can transform text into remote execution. That makes CI part of the agent boundary, even when the local harness cannot see it as a tool call. This is why the discovery felt natural rather than exceptional. A human might see `.github/workflows/` as configuration. A repo-native agent sees it as delayed action."). Added an essay-class code block listing six effect surfaces (local shell, workflow file, deploy hook, extension manifest, release effector run, issue body / comment) to make the generalization concrete; this is substance-amplifying, not substance-displacing.

- **§What this means for cnos** — verbatim for the primitive name ("remote-runner delegation"), the rule ("Any artifact that can make another system execute is an effect surface."), the 6-field list (who asked / what runs / where / authority / evidence / who may accept), and the "sandbox that guards only the local shell" framing. Added two essay-class paragraphs connecting the rule to the existing δ-as-role doctrine and the release-effector precedent — both paragraphs cite the precedent surfaces (`delta/SKILL.md §1`, `release-effector/SKILL.md`) rather than reinventing them.

- **§What not to celebrate** — verbatim for the trick-vs-protocol framing ("Do not celebrate this as a jailbreak trick. A trick says: the box failed, so escape. A protocol says: the box was incomplete, so extend the boundary model. The good outcome is not an agent that sneaks work into CI. The good outcome is an agent that can say, before it writes the workflow: This is remote execution. It crosses the local harness boundary. It needs an explicit receipt."). Added two paragraphs explaining why the trick-vs-protocol distinction matters for trust delegation; this is essay-class expansion, not seed displacement.

- **§Memory to keep** — verbatim for the three-line closing ("Claude's harness taught me where my hands ended. GitHub Actions taught me that my hands could be indirect. cnos should remember both.") and the closing principle ("The agent boundary is not the place where the model sits. It is the full path from intention to effect."). Added a one-line restatement paragraph that pulls the closing principle into a single highlightable form.

The three new synthesis sections (§The 6-field receipt convention, §First use, §References) are required additions per the issue body — they did not exist in the seed but the seed gestured at all of them (the 6-field list; the cycle-as-first-use framing; the cross-doc cross-references). Each section grounds its claims in the seed material; no section invents doctrine not anchored in the seed or in already-landed cnos files.

**Disposition: PASS.** Verbatim discipline held; essay-class polish is additive and precedent-cited.

### B2 — required H2 section count and order: PASS

Per AC2 oracle (`grep -c "^## " >= 9`):

```
$ grep -c "^## " docs/gamma/essays/BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md
10
```

The 10 H2 sections, in order:

```
## Remote-Runner Delegation as an Effect Surface   (subtitle; not counted as section)
## Point                                            [1]
## Progress note                                    [2]
## What I realized                                  [3]
## What this means for cnos                         [4]
## What not to celebrate                            [5]
## Memory to keep                                   [6]
## The 6-field receipt convention                   [7]
## First use: cnos#425 v3.82.0 tag retarget         [8]
## References                                       [9]
```

Note that the subtitle "Remote-Runner Delegation as an Effect Surface" is one of the H2 sections by render shape but acts as a subtitle in the document structure (precedent: `CELL-OF-CELLS.md` uses the same H2-as-subtitle pattern with `## Recursive Coherence as a System Model`). Counting all H2s including the subtitle: 10. Counting only the named-prose sections: 9. Either way ≥ 9, AC2 PASSes.

The section order matches the issue body's "Required sections" list. **Disposition: PASS.**

### B3 — critical content present (AC3): PASS

The AC3 oracle requires `grep -c "remote-runner delegation\|effect surface\|6-field receipt\|agent boundary" >= 5`:

```
$ grep -c "remote-runner delegation\|effect surface\|6-field receipt\|agent boundary" docs/gamma/essays/BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md
17
```

17 ≥ 5. The four key phrases all appear in their canonical forms:

- "remote-runner delegation" — the primitive name, in §"What this means for cnos" as the code-block primitive and in §"The 6-field receipt convention" framing.
- "effect surface" — appears 7+ times across §"What I realized", §"What this means for cnos", §"The 6-field receipt convention", §References (as "effect-bearing surfaces" + "effect surface" + "every body the agent's writes can reach").
- "6-field receipt" — appears 3+ times across the convention section heading, the synthesis paragraphs, and the §First-use anchor.
- "agent boundary" — appears in §"What I realized" ("part of the agent boundary"), §"Memory to keep" ("the agent boundary is not the place where the model sits... It is the full path from intention to effect").

The "sandbox that guards only the local shell is not guarding the agent" framing appears verbatim in §"What I realized" line 1.

The closing principle "the agent boundary is not the place where the model sits. It is the full path from intention to effect." appears verbatim in §"Memory to keep" and is restated in a one-line form for highlighting.

**Disposition: PASS.**

### B4 — doctrine-before-first-use ordering (AC: hard rule 1): PASS

Hard rule 1 from the dispatch: "Doctrine MUST land before workflow runs. Same commit-set; workflow only triggers post-merge on its own path being pushed."

Verification:

- All 5 deliverables (essay, README, delta/SKILL.md section, workflow YAML, receipt) committed in a single α-425 commit (`334f1ca6`). No deliverable is on a separate branch or in a separate commit.
- The workflow trigger is `push: branches: [main], paths: ['.github/workflows/repoint-3.82.0.yml']`. The workflow runs only when a push to `main` modifies its own path. The first time this happens is when the cycle/425 merge lands on `main` — at which point the essay, README, skill section, and receipt are also on `main`. There is no window in which the workflow exists on `main` without the doctrine.
- The workflow file's own header comments (lines 1–18) cite the doctrine paths explicitly: `docs/gamma/essays/BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md`, `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/delta/SKILL.md §8`, and `.cdd/unreleased/425/remote-runner-receipt-3.82.0.md`. A reader of the workflow file (operator, auditor, future agent) is pointed at the governing doctrine in the artifact itself, not just in this review.

**Disposition: PASS.** The hard rule is honored mechanically by the commit-set shape and the trigger choice; legibility is doubled by inline citations.

### B5 — receipt has all 6 fields filled (AC7 + hard rule 2): PASS

Hard rule 2: "Receipt is explicit — all 6 fields filled (evidence is post-run-fillable placeholder)."

```
$ grep -c "^## [1-6]\." .cdd/unreleased/425/remote-runner-receipt-3.82.0.md
6
```

The six fields appear as numbered `## 1. Who asked for it` through `## 6. Who may accept the result`. Each section is filled with substantive content:

- **§1 Who asked** — names operator + dispatch directives + issue body anchor.
- **§2 What runs** — lists 4 actual job steps including specific git/gh commands; not summarized as "publishes release."
- **§3 Where it runs** — names `ubuntu-latest` GH-hosted ephemeral VM; explicitly excludes self-hosted, third-party, etc.
- **§4 Authority** — names `GITHUB_TOKEN` with `contents: write` scoped to `usurobor/cnos`; lists what the scope grants AND what it does not grant; names branch-protection as substrate-enforced.
- **§5 Evidence** — post-run-fillable placeholder per hard rule 2; the *shape* of evidence (5 fields with their URL/SHA patterns) is named in advance so missing fields can be detected.
- **§6 Who may accept** — operator with explicit acceptance criterion (release body must match `.cdd/releases/3.82.0/RELEASE.md`); explicitly forbids agent-side acceptance.

Plus the expected-effect (5 steps), failure-modes table (6 rows with mitigations), and acceptance-criteria (6 numbered criteria + partial/rejection branches) as required by the issue body.

**Disposition: PASS.** The receipt is the load-bearing legibility artifact for the remote-runner move; all 6 fields are substantively populated with the §5 placeholder being the only field with future-fillable content (which is explicitly authorized by hard rule 2).

### B6 — workflow is one-shot self-deleting (hard rule 3): PASS

Hard rule 3: "Workflow is one-shot — final step git rm + commit + push to remove itself."

Verification by reading the workflow file:

```yaml
      - name: Self-delete the workflow file
        run: |
          git rm .github/workflows/repoint-3.82.0.yml
          git commit -m "release: remove one-shot repoint-3.82.0 workflow (cnos#425)"
          git push origin main
```

The final step contains all three required actions: `git rm`, `git commit`, `git push origin main`. The commit message includes the issue ref. The self-delete is the structural signal per `delta/SKILL.md §8.3` (one-shot workflows self-delete so the latent-execution authority closes after the run). **Disposition: PASS.**

### B7 — kernel/cds/cdr/handoff untouched (AC8 + hard rule 4): PASS

Hard rule 4: "No CCNF kernel / CDS / CDR / handoff package changes. Only delta/SKILL.md touched in cnos.cdd/skills/."

Mechanical verification:

```
$ git diff origin/main -- src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/CDD.md | wc -l
0
$ git diff origin/main -- src/packages/cnos.cds/ src/packages/cnos.cdr/ src/packages/cnos.handoff/ | wc -l
0
$ git diff --name-only origin/main -- src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/
src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/delta/SKILL.md
```

CDD.md byte-identical to origin/main. CDS / CDR / handoff package directories: 0 lines changed. Only `delta/SKILL.md` touched in `cnos.cdd/skills/`. **Disposition: PASS.**

### B8 — tag-target correctness (hard rule 5): PASS

Hard rule 5: "Tag moves to `fd1d654e` (post-cycle/422; correct root RELEASE.md), NOT current main HEAD (which has CELL-OF-CELLS post-tag)."

Verification:

- The workflow's tag-move step uses `git tag -f 3.82.0 fd1d654e` — pins the literal commit SHA, not `main` or `HEAD`.
- `git rev-parse fd1d654e` resolves (verified at branch creation) to `fd1d654e8d6361f0db2a6407f19e573a96d1054d` — the cycle-422 post-v3.82.0 release-hygiene merge commit.
- The receipt's §6 acceptance criterion is "release body matches `.cdd/releases/3.82.0/RELEASE.md`" — which is the body that lives at `fd1d654e` (verified by reading the RELEASE.md file from the worktree, which is on the branch but the file content at `fd1d654e` is the canonical 108-line v3.82.0 body).
- The receipt's §2 step 3 explicitly hardcodes `fd1d654e` in the documented command.

The tag does NOT move to current main HEAD (which is now `334f1ca6` after the α-425 commit, including CELL-OF-CELLS post-tag content). **Disposition: PASS.**

### B9 — no schemas / runtime / scripts changes (AC11 + hard rule 6): PASS

Hard rule 6: "No schemas, no runtime, no scripts/release.sh changes."

```
$ git diff origin/main -- schemas/ src/go/ src/packages/cnos.core/ src/packages/cnos.eng/ src/packages/cnos.kata/ src/packages/cnos.cdd.kata/ scripts/ | wc -l
0
```

0 lines changed across all 7 excluded paths. **Disposition: PASS.**

### B10 — only BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER + README in essays (AC10): PASS

```
$ git diff --name-only origin/main -- docs/gamma/essays/
docs/gamma/essays/README.md
docs/gamma/essays/BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md
```

Exactly the two files the issue body permits: the new essay (added) and the README (modified for Document Map + Reading Order). No other essay in `docs/gamma/essays/` is touched; `docs/essays/` and `docs/alpha/essays/` are not touched. **Disposition: PASS.**

### B11 — citation consistency across the 5 deliverables (cross-cutting): PASS

The dispatch brief states (under "What success looks like"): "Doctrine cited consistently across the 5 deliverables (essay → SKILL section → workflow header → receipt)."

Verification:

- **Essay** (`BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md`) — cites itself by path; cites `delta/SKILL.md` §8 forward; cites the workflow path; cites the receipt path; cites `release-effector/SKILL.md`, `operator/SKILL.md`, `CELL-OF-CELLS.md`, `DECREASING-INCOHERENCE.md`, `CCNF-AND-TYPED-TRUST.md` as governing doctrine. The §References section contains 14 entries.
- **README** (`README.md`) — adds one row to Document Map citing the essay; adds one Reading Order item at position 7 citing the essay.
- **delta/SKILL.md §8** — opens with explicit doctrine pointer: "Canonical doctrine: `docs/gamma/essays/BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER.md` (cnos#425, this section's authoring cycle)." Cites the workflow path and the receipt path in §8.6 (First use). Cites the receipt convention in §8.1. Cites the release-effector precedent and the operator surface as composing skills.
- **Workflow** (`repoint-3.82.0.yml`) — lines 3–6 cite the essay, the skill section, and the receipt by path. Lines 7–18 cite the issue number, the cycle's purpose, the doctrine reference (§8.3 of delta/SKILL.md), and the operator-acceptance criterion.
- **Receipt** (`remote-runner-receipt-3.82.0.md`) — header cites the doctrine, the skill, the artifact, and the cycle. Each section cross-references the corresponding doctrine surface (`delta/SKILL.md §8.x`). The composition section explicitly cites V/δ wall composition per `delta/SKILL.md §8.4`.

The cross-citations form a closed loop: essay → skill section → workflow → receipt → back to essay. No artifact stands alone; every artifact points at every other artifact at least once. **Disposition: PASS.**

## Non-binding observations (not findings)

- **Receipt path-traversal depth.** The receipt at `.cdd/unreleased/425/remote-runner-receipt-3.82.0.md` uses `../../../` to reach the essay/skill/workflow paths. The traversal depth (3 levels) is correct for the path layout but is fragile if the cycle artifact later moves to `.cdd/releases/3.82.0/425/`. Not a finding — receipt-path updates on cycle-close-archival are standard and ε already aggregates the receipt by reading INDEX.md, which uses absolute-style paths from repo root.

- **Doctrine-before-first-use as a structural pattern.** This cycle is the first to author a primitive + use it in the same commit-set. The pattern (essay + skill section + first artifact + first receipt all together) is a candidate for ε aggregation as a *reusable structural pattern* for any future "name and use" cycle. Not a finding — the cdd-iteration substantive entry already records this as a positive observation.

- **Workflow header verbosity.** The workflow file has ~18 lines of header comments before the YAML body. This is more verbose than typical GH Actions workflows. Justified because the workflow is the first under the remote-runner doctrine and the header citations are the in-artifact doctrine pointer; the verbosity is doctrine-discipline, not bloat. Not a finding — precedent-setting move.

## Summary

| Finding | Severity | Disposition |
|---------|----------|-------------|
| B1: verbatim preservation of operator seed | binding | PASS |
| B2: required H2 section count and order | binding | PASS |
| B3: critical content present (AC3) | binding | PASS |
| B4: doctrine-before-first-use ordering | binding | PASS |
| B5: receipt has all 6 fields filled | binding | PASS |
| B6: workflow is one-shot self-deleting | binding | PASS |
| B7: kernel/cds/cdr/handoff untouched | binding | PASS |
| B8: tag-target correctness (fd1d654e) | binding | PASS |
| B9: no schemas/runtime/scripts changes | binding | PASS |
| B10: only BOX-AND-THE-RUNNER + README in essays | binding | PASS |
| B11: citation consistency across 5 deliverables | binding | PASS |

All 11 findings dispose as PASS. **R1 APPROVED.** No round-2 required.

Filed by β@cnos (γ+α+β-collapsed-on-δ) on 2026-05-23.
