# ε cdd-iteration — cycle/406 (Sub 1 of cnos#403)

**Issue:** [cnos#406](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/406) — Bootstrap cnos.cds package skeleton + extraction map.
**Mode:** design-and-build; γ+α+β collapsed on δ.
**Rounds:** R1 APPROVED (no fix-rounds).
**ACs:** 7/7 PASS.

## Findings

**None.**

`protocol_gap_count` for this cycle: **0**. No `cdd-skill-gap`, `cdd-protocol-gap`, `cdd-tooling-gap`, or `cdd-metric-gap` surfaced. Six β-review observations (Obs-1 through Obs-6) are recorded in `beta-review.md` and dispositioned in `gamma-closeout.md`; all six are non-binding and editorial/improvement-class, none are protocol-class gaps.

## Cadence rule conformance

Per the cycle/401 cadence rule (landed at [cnos#401](https://github.com/usurobor/cnos/issues/401)): `cdd-iteration.md` is required only when `protocol_gap_count > 0`. This cycle's count is 0; the artifact is therefore **not required**.

The file is written as a **courtesy artifact** per the cycle/401 closing convention and per #406's dispatch obligation ("cdd-iteration.md — per the rule landed in cycle/401: required only when `protocol_gap_count > 0`. If your cycle surfaces no protocol gaps, write the courtesy empty-findings stub naming `protocol_gap_count: 0`"). The dispatch explicitly requested the courtesy stub; α complies.

## Protocol-gap signals (across receipt-stream)

**None surfaced this cycle.** This is a package-skeleton + extraction-map cycle; the work is structural (mirror cdr v0.1 shape; author the extraction map). No protocol-class gaps surfaced during α work, β review, or γ close-out. The six β observations are editorial / doctrine-coherence improvements that α made proactively (v0.1 caveat section; kernel/realization conflict rule; canonical `delta/` naming; §13 coverage-verification table; §14 open-questions). None of these are skill-failure signals (the loaded skills — cdd, design, issue/contract, issue/proof — all guided the work successfully).

## Non-findings worth recording

- **#406 implementation contract was pinned tightly enough that α had no design judgment to exercise on the manifest, README section shape, or SKILL.md frontmatter shape.** All three are verbatim or near-verbatim from cdr/cn.package.json, cdr/README.md, cdr/skills/cdr/SKILL.md. The pinning is the strength of #406's δ contract; this cycle is evidence that tightly-pinned implementation contracts produce zero-finding cycles.
- **The two SKILL.md additions (v0.1 caveat + kernel/realization conflict rule) are not deviations from the pinned contract; they are extensions within the contract's scope.** #406's AC4 says the loader pattern "mirrors" cdr; "mirror" does not preclude adding rules that the mirrored file leaves implicit. β concurred with α's reasoning during review.
- **The extraction-map §13 (coverage-verification) and §14 (open-questions) are arguable AC5 over-deliveries.** They are not required by AC5 wording. They are Sub-3-through-Sub-6-enabling. β assessed them as "exceeds the minimum" rather than "deviates from the contract". Future #406-style bootstrap-cycle ACs may codify §13-class tables as a standard expectation; this is a candidate for ε to surface as a `cdd-skill-gap` if a future cycle struggles without it. For this cycle: no patch.
- **`cn build --check` runs cleanly without any cnos.core changes** confirms the discovery design (filesystem-presence-based per `pkg.go §"ContentClasses"`) is correct: a new package can land without touching the discovery code, exactly as #406 AC2 predicted. This is evidence that the package-system design itself is well-factored.

## Verdict

No ε action required beyond what is shipped in the cycle delivery. No protocol patch to defer. No follow-on Sub to spin for this cycle (the Subs 2–7 of #403 are already filed in the tracker; they are the natural continuation, not ε-discovered follow-ons).

Sub 1 of #403 is complete. Subs 2–7 of #403 dispatch in their own cycles per the #403 wave shape.
