# α close-out — cycle/393

**Issue:** cnos#393 — δ-as-architect: implementation-contract enrichment at dispatch
**Mode:** design-and-build, γ+α+β-collapsed-on-δ
**Outcome:** 4 SKILL patches + cnos#366 Phase 4 body update + closure artifacts; β APPROVED R1 unconditionally.

## Cycle summary

Four coordinated additive patches landed on `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/{alpha,beta,gamma,operator}/SKILL.md` forming one referential mesh that captures the implementation-contract doctrine as four role-side surfaces:

- α §3.6 — "Implementation contract is δ's, not α's" (α MUST NOT improvise 7 axes).
- β Rule 7 — "Implementation-contract coherence" (verify before APPROVE; non-conformance → RC/D-severity).
- γ §2.5 Step 3b subsection — `## Implementation contract` template (7 axes; γ MUST NOT dispatch with empty rows).
- operator §3a — "δ as inward membrane: implementation-contract enrichment at dispatch" (Phase 4 relocation target).

Plus a cnos#366 Phase 4 body edit absorbing #393 as a Phase 4 design input and naming δ as explicitly two-sided.

## Diff patterns observed

- **Cross-skill referential mesh — bidirectional pairwise.** The mesh shape that emerged is "each patch cites the other three by name + path + section anchor, but each rule's *justification* is local via the empirical anchors." This is bibliographic-not-deductive coupling; it gives discoverability without circular logical dependency. The shape generalizes — any future multi-patch-mesh cycle should follow this pattern: local self-justification + bibliographic cross-citation.

- **Numbering-convention divergence between role skills.** The issue body suggested "Rule 8" for α and "Rule 7" for β; α actually numbers as `3.N` (single-period) and β uses "Rule N" headings. α's translation to `### 3.6.` and β's natural `### 7.` is correct per each file's existing convention. The lesson: when an issue body names a rule number, double-check the target file's convention before authoring; faithful translation > literal compliance.

- **Insertion-point selection for additive patches.** All 4 patches used the `Edit` tool with `old_string` chosen to preserve adjacent unchanged content. For α this was the end of §3.5 + start of §4. For β it was the end of Rule 6's examples + start of "## Resumption". For γ it was between the α-prompt block and the β-prompt block in §2.5 Step 3b. For operator it was between §3.5 ("The tag is the signal") and `## 4. Override`. In each case the insertion-point was named in `design-notes.md` *before* the edit, which made the surgical insertion straightforward.

- **Operator-pinned implementation contract self-applies.** This cycle's own implementation contract was pinned by δ in the dispatch (language=markdown, package scoping=4 specific paths, no runtime deps, additive). β verified each row against the diff. The cycle ships the rule and proves it works by following it.

## Friction log

Minimal. The cycle landed cleanly in one α build commit + one β review pass + close-outs.

- **No surprises in the existing files** — all four target SKILL.md files were read in full before authoring; no concurrent modification; no rule renumbering required; no Patch D collision with concurrent Phase 4 work (Phase 4 is open at cnos#366 but no `delta/SKILL.md` exists yet).
- **AC oracle greps ran clean first time** — the AC1–AC4 + AC7 oracles were authored at γ-scaffold time and the diff was authored to pass them; AC6 mesh was planned in `design-notes.md` and verified via grep-pair.

## Observations / patterns (factual, not recommendations)

- **Pattern: meta-cycle that ships its own rule.** Cycle #393 ships the rule "γ writes `## Implementation contract` at dispatch" and the dispatch for #393 itself carried a fully-populated `## Implementation contract` section. The next cycle author of any rule-shaped patch can follow this template: pin the implementation contract in the operator dispatch, write the rule, verify the rule applies to its own cycle.
- **Pattern: four-surface mesh for cross-role doctrine.** When a doctrine spans 4 roles (α/β/γ/δ), the 4-patch mesh structure observed here (each patch local + bibliographic cross-cites) is a reusable shape. Phase 4 of cnos#366 will likely produce a similar mesh as it splits operator/SKILL.md.
- **Pattern: Phase 4 absorption.** This cycle deliberately lands Patch D at `operator/SKILL.md` §3a (not at a new `delta/SKILL.md`) and explicitly names Phase 4 as the relocation target. This means Phase 4 inherits a clean handoff: doctrine is pinned, surface is named, only the relocation work remains. Phase 4 designers don't have to *invent* the inward-membrane framing; they only have to *relocate* §3a to `delta/SKILL.md` and align it with the harness substrate carving.
- **Pattern: operator-as-architect named explicitly.** The "δ-as-architect" framing in #393's title is the operator's job description for the inward face. Distinguishing this from γ-as-coordinator and δ-as-boundary (outward) is the design contribution — it names what every operator was already doing implicitly and makes it git-observable in future cycles.

## Known debt

**None of substance.** One declared next-cycle work item is the Phase 4 relocation of `operator/SKILL.md` §3a → `delta/SKILL.md`; cnos#366 now names this explicitly. No undisclosed debt.

## CDD Trace

Full trace in `self-coherence.md` §CDD Trace (step 7 complete; AC mapping complete; mesh evidence + empirical-anchor evidence in dedicated subsections of `self-coherence.md` and `beta-review.md`).
