**Verdict:** REQUEST CHANGES


**Round:** 1
**Fixed this round:** N/A (initial review)
**Base SHA:** 5a9055a1 (origin/main)
**Head SHA:** f235c404 (cycle/348)
**Merge instruction:** Pending completion of file edits; will be `git merge cycle/348` into main with `Closes #348` after fixes applied

**Merge instruction:** [PENDING]

## §2.0.0 Contract Integrity

| Check | Result | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Status truth preserved | yes | Issue clearly distinguishes planned work (ROLES.md §4 addition) from current state |
| Canonical sources/paths verified | yes | All target files (ROLES.md, operator/SKILL.md §5.2, epsilon/SKILL.md) exist and paths are correct |
| Scope/non-goals consistent | yes | docs-only mode, design-and-build scope is consistent with issue ACs |
| Constraint strata consistent | n/a | No constraint strata defined in issue |
| Exceptions field-specific/reasoned | n/a | No exceptions in this docs-only cycle |
| Path resolution base explicit | yes | All file paths in self-coherence are explicit and correct |
| Proof shape adequate | n/a | Docs-only cycle, no validation/checker work |
| Cross-surface projections updated | yes | Issue specifies cross-references to be added from operator/epsilon skills |
| No witness theater / false closure | yes | Implementation is straightforward docs addition, no false enforcement claims |
| PR body matches branch files | n/a | No PR used (branch-based coordination per CDD triadic protocol) |

## §2.0.0 Contract Integrity — Assessment

All contract integrity checks pass. The issue is well-scoped, the work contract is consistent, and α's implementation specification aligns with the stated ACs. No contract-level findings identified.

**Phase 1 complete.** Proceeding to Phase 2: Implementation review.## §2.0 Issue Contract

### AC Coverage
| # | AC | In diff? | Status | Notes |
|---|----|----------|--------|-------|
| 1 | ROLES.md contains a section (§4 or amendment) stating the hats-vs-actors principle | no | complete (spec only) | Fully specified in self-coherence §CDD-Trace step 6, ready for execution |
| 2 | The principle names independence as the collapse constraint (not ceremony, not headcount) | no | complete (spec only) | "Independence, not headcount" subsection specified with structural reasoning |
| 3 | At least one worked example (δ=γ safe because..., α=β unsafe because...) | no | complete (spec only) | Three worked examples specified: δ=γ (safe), α=β (unsafe), ε=δ (safe) |
| 4 | Cross-reference from operator/SKILL.md §5.2 to the new section | no | complete (spec only) | Exact cross-reference text specified, insertion point identified |
| 5 | Cross-reference from epsilon/SKILL.md collapse note to the new section | no | complete (spec only) | Cross-reference text specified for insertion after line 71 |

### Named Doc Updates
| Doc / File | In diff? | Status | Notes |
|------------|----------|--------|-------|
| ROLES.md | no | specified | New §4 content fully specified, section renumbering planned |
| operator/SKILL.md | no | specified | Cross-reference text ready for §5.2 |
| epsilon/SKILL.md | no | specified | Cross-reference text ready for closure note |

### CDD Artifact Contract
| Artifact | Required? | Present? | Notes |
|----------|-----------|----------|-------|
| self-coherence.md | yes | yes | Complete with all required sections: Gap, Skills, ACs, Self-check, Debt, CDD-Trace |
| alpha-closeout.md | no | no | Not required until after β approval/merge |
| beta-review.md | yes | in progress | This document |

### Active Skill Consistency
| Skill | Required by | Loaded? | Applied? | Notes |
|-------|-------------|---------|----------|-------|
| write/SKILL.md | issue (Tier 3) | yes | yes | Used for coherent prose composition, evident in self-coherence quality |

## §2.0 Issue Contract — Assessment

**Unique situation: implementation specified but not executed.** α has completed the design and specification work for all 5 ACs but encountered systematic permission constraints that prevented file execution. All required content is fully specified in the self-coherence document with exact text and insertion points.

**AC coverage:** All 5 ACs are satisfied by the specification. The implementation is complete from a design perspective.

**File modifications:** No target files modified yet due to permission constraints (ROLES.md, operator/SKILL.md, epsilon/SKILL.md). This represents a workflow constraint, not a design gap.

**CDD artifacts:** All required CDD artifacts are present and complete.

**Skills:** Required Tier 3 write skill was properly loaded and applied.

**Phase 2a complete.** Proceeding to Phase 2b: diff and context inspection.## §2.1 Diff and Context Inspection

**Context:** This is a docs-only cycle where α has completed implementation specification but file execution was blocked by permission constraints. Review focuses on the specification quality and completeness in self-coherence.md.

### 2.1.1 Structural closure and input-source enumeration
**Status:** N/A - No implementation code, only doc specification.

### 2.1.2 Multi-format semantic parity
**Status:** Pass - The principle is stated consistently across the specification. All three worked examples align with the core principle.

### 2.1.3 Snapshot consistency
**Status:** N/A - No snapshot tests involved.

### 2.1.4 Stale-path validation
**Status:** Pass - All target file paths verified as correct:
- `ROLES.md` exists (verified)
- `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/operator/SKILL.md` exists (verified)
- `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/epsilon/SKILL.md` exists (verified)
Line number references are accurate (ROLES.md line 158 for insertion, operator/SKILL.md line 291, epsilon/SKILL.md line 71).

### 2.1.5 Branch naming and conventions
**Status:** Pass - Branch `cycle/348` follows established convention for issue #348.

### 2.1.6 Execution timeline for state-changing paths
**Status:** N/A - No process boundaries or state changes involved.

### 2.1.7 Derivation vs validation
**Status:** N/A - No derivation or validation claims.

### 2.1.8 Authority-surface conflict
**Status:** Pass - Specification content is internally consistent. No conflicts between:
- Issue ACs vs self-coherence implementation
- Principle statement vs worked examples
- Cross-reference targets vs source locations

### 2.1.9 Module-truth audit
**Status:** Pass - Reviewed surrounding content in target files for consistency with proposed additions. The new §4 aligns with existing ROLES.md structure and does not contradict existing role definitions.

### 2.1.10 Contract-implementation confinement
**Status:** N/A - No function contracts or input domains defined.

### 2.1.11 Architecture leverage check  
**Status:** Pass - The change addresses the stated gap at the appropriate level. Adding the principle to ROLES.md (the canonical role spec) with cross-references from specific skill files is the correct architectural approach.

### 2.1.12 Process overhead check
**Status:** Pass - The addition is foundational documentation that reduces future confusion about role collapse decisions. No new process overhead introduced.

### 2.1.13 Project design constraints check
**Status:** Pass - No design constraints document exists for this project. The change preserves existing role structure while adding clarifying principles.

## §2.1 Diff and Context — Assessment

**Specification quality is high.** α's implementation specification is thorough, well-reasoned, and addresses all ACs. The proposed content is consistent with existing role definitions and provides clear structural reasoning for collapse decisions.

**No diff-level findings identified.** The specification work is complete and ready for execution once permission constraints are resolved.

**Phase 2b complete.** Proceeding to Phase 2c: architecture and design check.## §2.2 Architecture and Design Check

**Architecture check not active.** This cycle adds foundational documentation to ROLES.md about role collapse principles. The change does not touch package boundaries, command/provider/orchestrator/skill separation, source/artifact/installed flow, registry design, kernel vs package responsibility, transport vs protocol semantics, or command dispatch vs domain logic.

**No architectural boundary changes.** The cycle clarifies existing role behavior without modifying system architecture.

**Phase 2c complete.** All implementation review phases complete.## Findings

| # | Finding | Evidence | Severity | Type |
|---|---------|----------|----------|------|
| 1 | File edits not executed | Target files (ROLES.md, operator/SKILL.md, epsilon/SKILL.md) remain unmodified; only self-coherence.md exists in diff | B | mechanical |

## Verdict Assessment

**Design work is complete and excellent.** α has produced a thorough, well-reasoned implementation specification that fully satisfies all 5 ACs. The proposed ROLES.md §4 content is structurally sound, provides clear independence-based reasoning for role collapse decisions, and includes appropriate worked examples.

**Implementation gap: file edits pending.** While all design work is complete, the actual target files have not been modified due to permission constraints α encountered. The implementation exists only as specification in self-coherence.md.

**Ready for execution.** All file edits are fully specified with exact text and insertion points. No design changes needed.

## CI Status
Branch CI: green (all Build workflows success)

## Verdict
**REQUEST CHANGES**

**Required fix:** Execute the three file edits specified in self-coherence §CDD-Trace step 6:
1. Add ROLES.md new §4 after line 158 (content fully specified)
2. Add operator/SKILL.md cross-reference after line 291 (content fully specified) 
3. Add epsilon/SKILL.md cross-reference after line 71 (content fully specified)

All content is ready for execution. No design modifications required.