# cdd-iteration — cycle/393

**Issue:** cnos#393
**Date:** 2026-05-21
**Cycle:** 393
**Mode:** design-and-build, γ+α+β-collapsed-on-δ
**Findings:** 0 protocol/skill/tooling/metric gaps surfaced (this cycle IS the patch implementing F1–F4 from cnos#392's `cdd-iteration.md`; the meta-finding is "this cycle shipped")
**Patches:** 4 (the 4 SKILL.md patches; landed this cycle)
**MCAs:** 0 (no deferred next-cycle work beyond the already-tracked Phase 4 of cnos#366)
**No-patch:** 0

Per `cdd/post-release/SKILL.md` §5.6b, this file records protocol-gap and skill-gap findings produced during the cycle. Empty-findings cycles still write this file per `epsilon/SKILL.md §1` and `activation/SKILL.md §22`.

---

## Meta-finding (drop class)

**M1 — This cycle is the patch.** Cycle #393 implements F1–F4 forecast by cycle #392's `cdd-iteration.md` (the four `cdd-protocol-gap` findings: α-cannot-decide-arch, β-cannot-verify-implementation-contract, γ-template-missing-impl-contract, δ-inward-membrane-undocumented). The 4 patches landed in this cycle (α §3.6, β Rule 7, γ §2.5 template, δ §3a) close the protocol-gap class that #389 + #391 surfaced.

**Disposition:** `no-action / drop` — the patches are the action; no further next-MCA needed for the failure class itself. Phase 4 of cnos#366 absorbs the Patch D relocation as a separate tracked Phase, not as a new finding.

---

## New patterns observed (cross-cycle; informational; not findings)

These are patterns surfaced during the cross-skill coherence work; they're not new protocol gaps requiring action, but they're useful templates for future cycles.

### P1 — 4-surface mesh as reusable doctrine-shipping shape

When a doctrine spans 4 roles (α/β/γ/δ), the patch structure observed here is reusable:

1. Each patch is **locally self-justifying** via its own empirical anchors.
2. Each patch carries **bibliographic cross-citations** ("see X §Y for the role-side enforcement").
3. The mesh is **directed-acyclic in justification** but **bidirectional in citation** — discoverability without circular logical dependency.

Future cross-role doctrine cycles (Phase 4 δ-split; Phase 5 γ-shrink; Phase 6 ε-relocation) will produce similar 3-or-4-surface meshes. The shape is worth keeping in mind as a γ-scaffold template, but it's not formal enough yet to ship as a γ rule.

### P2 — Meta-cycle: shipping rule + self-applying it in the same cycle

This cycle is a self-witness: it ships Rule 7 ("β verifies implementation-contract conformance before APPROVE") and then β applies Rule 7 to this cycle's own implementation contract. The 7 axes were pinned in the operator dispatch; the diff conformed to each axis; β confirmed each row.

When future cycles ship rule-shaped patches, the "ship the rule and witness it in the same cycle" pattern is the strongest validation available. The dispatch should pin the contract; the diff should pass the rule the diff ships; β should verify with explicit row-by-row mapping.

### P3 — Phase-N design-prerequisite-anchor pattern

Patch D ("δ as inward membrane") lands in `operator/SKILL.md` §3a, *not* in a new `delta/SKILL.md`, even though Phase 4 of cnos#366 will eventually relocate it. The reasoning:

- Phase 4 hasn't dispatched yet.
- The doctrine needs to be captured now (the empirical anchors are fresh from #389 + #391; waiting risks losing the framing).
- The relocation is mechanical; the doctrine is the work.

The pattern: when a future phase will move a surface, the current cycle still authors the surface in its current home and names the future relocation target explicitly. Phase 4's cycle inherits a clean handoff: doctrine pinned, relocation target named, only the move is left.

---

## §9.1 trigger assessment

- **Review churn:** R1 APPROVED unconditionally. No fired trigger.
- **Mechanical overload:** 0 findings; 0% mechanical ratio. No fired trigger.
- **Avoidable tooling failure:** none. No fired trigger.
- **Loaded-skill miss:** none. No fired trigger.

No §9.1 triggers fired this cycle.

---

## Independent γ process-gap check

- Did this cycle reveal a recurring friction? **No** — the cycle landed cleanly in one α build pass + one β review pass.
- Was any gate too weak or too vague? **No** — the AC oracles in `gamma-scaffold.md` were mechanical enough that AC1–AC4 + AC7 verification was a one-line grep per AC; the AC6 mesh check needed a grep-pair matrix but was equally mechanical.
- Did a role skill fail to prevent a predictable error? **No** — no errors occurred during the cycle.
- Did coordination burden show a better mechanical path? **No** — the collapsed-on-δ mode for this scale of work (7 ACs, 4 patches, ~150 lines of additive content) was appropriate.

No protocol-gap action required from this cycle.
