# α Close-Out — Cycle #283

Per `CDD.md` §5.3a + `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.8: α's post-merge close-out narrative. Separate from `self-coherence.md`, which carries the in-cycle gap / mode / AC mapping / CDD Trace / fix-rounds. Voice constraint per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.8: factual observations and patterns only — no dispositions (γ's job).

This close-out is written after γ's PRA and γ-closeout have landed (commits `b347ec2`..`dce3439`); γ noted at `gamma-closeout.md` line 93 that closure declaration is held pending this artifact. α has read β's close-out (`beta-closeout.md`), γ's clarification (`gamma-clarification.md`), γ's close-out (`gamma-closeout.md`), and the PRA index in γ-closeout — α-closeout records observations that are α's own and avoids duplicating triage work γ has already done.

## Cycle summary

| | |
|---|---|
| Issue | #283 — *Replace GitHub PR workflow with `.cn/unreleased//` artifact exchange in CDD*. Filed by γ from #266 / #268 / #274 derivation chain. Auto-closed on merge of `58c1666` ("Closes #283: ..."). |
| Cycle branch | `claude/cdd-tier-1-skills-pptds` (legacy harness shape — pre-#287 will replace with `cycle/{N}` per γ's deferred-output #287). All α + β + γ artifacts on this one branch in line with γ's F1 resolution. |
| Dispatch | γ → α: project `cnos`, issue #283, Tier 3 skills "none beyond CDD Tier 1 — this is CDD self-modification; all affected files are within `src/packages/cnos.cdd/skills/cdd/`." Branch pre-set by harness. |
| Work shape | Substantial CDD self-modification (MCA). Diff scope: 9 modified skill files + 6 file migrations + 3 new cycle artifacts + 1 cherry-picked β commit, +693 / -204 net at merge `58c1666`. 5 commits authored on the cycle branch (α: `aac0607`, `1aaf9fb`, `fc50265`; γ: `2f83095`; β: `8d78514` cherry-picked from β branch + `209882b` R2 verdict). |
| Tier 1 skills loaded | `cdd/SKILL.md`, `cdd/CDD.md`, `cdd/alpha/SKILL.md`. Lifecycle sub-skills loaded by step: `cdd/issue/SKILL.md` skimmed at intake (no AC quality issue surfaced); `cdd/design/SKILL.md` not loaded (design artifact justified "not required" — issue body carries impact graph; α self-coherence carries CDD Trace); `cdd/plan/SKILL.md` not loaded (plan justified "not required" — implementation order = authority hierarchy). |
| Tier 2 skills loaded | `eng/document` (skill prose discipline), `cnos.core/skills/skill` (skill-program/frontmatter coherence — α modified frontmatter on multiple skills). |
| Tier 3 skills | None beyond CDD Tier 1 (per issue declaration). |
| Review rounds | **2** — R1 REQUEST CHANGES (β: 4 findings, 1 D + 2 C + 1 B); R2 APPROVED (β: 0 findings). Target ≤ 2 met. |
| Findings against α | 4 R1 / 0 R2 = 4 total. Severity: 1 D + 2 C + 1 B. Type: 4 judgment / 0 mechanical. All resolved on-branch in α R2 (`fc50265`). |
| Mechanical ratio | 0% (4/4 judgment). Below §9.1 ≥10-finding floor. |
| Local verification | No build/test surfaces in scope (markdown-only diff). Pre-review residual scans: `grep -rn "/(alpha\|beta\|gamma)\\.md\\b"` → 0 hits; `grep -rn "{role}\\.md"` → 1 hit (intentional prohibition phrase at `CDD.md` §Tracking line 140); `grep -rn "origin/main"` → all matches classified as intentional (release no-merged enumeration, γ-Phase-5 cleanup, explicit prohibition prose). |
| Cycle level | Set by γ at L5 cap, L7 diff (`POST-RELEASE-ASSESSMENT.md` §1 + γ-closeout cycle summary line 14). β had provisionally graded L6 in the release-commit CHANGELOG row; γ revised to L5 cap after the §9.1 trigger fires landed. α records the cap-grade for completeness; the engineering-level call is γ's. |
| Concurrent main activity | One commit on origin/main during the cycle: `b281e81` (sigma's CTB + LANGUAGE-SPEC + Vision v2.0 roadmap, non-overlapping with #283 diff scope). Merge against `b281e81..` was clean (β release-evidence section). |

## Findings against α

All four R1 findings are α-side closure overclaims (per `alpha/SKILL.md` §1.3 failure mode). β's `beta-review.md` carries the verdict, evidence, and severity per finding. β's `beta-closeout.md` cycle-findings section carries pattern observations. This α-side recap is intentionally short (β + γ cover the surface in detail); α records what α saw at fix-round time.

### F1 — polling-source spec contradicts the cycle's own behavior (D, judgment)

Resolved by γ (`gamma-clarification.md` commit `2f83095`) before α began the fix-round; γ chose candidate (a) "branch-polling canonical, one cycle branch holds all role artifacts." α applied the resolution across the 5 surfaces β identified in `fc50265`. The fix is documented in detail at `self-coherence.md` §"Round 1 → Round 2: Fix-round summary" → F1.

α-side observation at fix-round time: F1's resolution made F2/F3/F4 follow deterministically — once "cycle branch is canonical" was locked, the close-out file routing in F2 became unambiguous (β's release evidence belongs in `beta-closeout.md`, not in `beta-review.md`); the warn-only legacy paths in F3 and the superseded `{role}.md` shape in F4 lost their last positive-requirement surfaces. β's R2 narrowing pattern (4 R1 → 0 R2) is what F1's structural nature predicts: once the structural call is made, the downstream drift collapses to mechanical-shape edits.

### F2 — release/SKILL.md §2.10 β-write target (C, judgment)

`release/SKILL.md` §2.10's two β-write bullets directed both "release evidence" and "β close-out section" into `beta-review.md`, contradicting 5 peer surfaces that all named `beta-closeout.md`. Fixed in `fc50265` by repointing both bullets and adding an explicit role-split sentence between `beta-review.md` (rounds) and `beta-closeout.md` (close-out + release evidence).

α-side observation: F2 is a downstream consequence of F1's authority-surface drift in the lifecycle skills. α's pre-review schema-shape audit (per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.6 row 6) verified the new canonical filename set across the role skills (`alpha/SKILL.md` §2.8, `beta/SKILL.md` §5, `gamma/SKILL.md` §2.10) and the canonical-source matrix (`CDD.md` §5.3a row 727 + §Tracking canonical filename table + §1.4 β step 9), but did not extend the audit to the lifecycle skills (`release/SKILL.md` §2.10 was the unaudited downstream consumer).

### F3 — post-release pre-publish gate references legacy CLOSE-OUT.md (C, judgment)

`post-release/SKILL.md` pre-publish gate row 340 required `.cdd/.../gamma/CLOSE-OUT.md` as a positive existence check, contradicting `CDD.md` §5.3a row 728 + `gamma/SKILL.md` §2.7 + `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.8 + `beta/SKILL.md` §5, all of which mark the legacy aggregate path warn-only. Fixed in `fc50265` by repointing the gate row to `gamma-closeout.md` (in-version or post-release path) and inlining the warn-only note for the legacy form.

α-side observation: same lifecycle-skill drift class as F2. Same audit-scope miss (post-release/SKILL.md was the unaudited downstream consumer of the §5.3a authority surface).

### F4 — post-release/SKILL.md §5.6 references superseded `{role}.md` shape (B, judgment / mechanical-shape)

`post-release/SKILL.md` §5.6 line 226 referenced "`.cdd/unreleased/{N}/{role}.md` artifacts" — the rigid placeholder shape rejected by `CDD.md` §Tracking line 140. The phrasing pre-dates this cycle's intermediate AC text (which used `{N}/{role}.md`) and was not updated in α's second pass when γ's mid-cycle issue edit replaced the rigid shape with descriptive filenames. Fixed in `fc50265` by repointing to "`.cdd/unreleased/{N}/` cycle artifacts (per the canonical filename set in `CDD.md` §Tracking)" with an authority pointer.

α-side observation: F4 is a tracer for both the lifecycle-skill drift class (same as F2/F3) AND the issue-edit-mid-cycle invalidation pattern (γ's body edit between α's first and second commits left a shape reference α did not catch in the second pass). Two distinct patterns landed in one finding.

## Cycle Iteration (α-side reading, for γ to adjudicate)

α records the §9.1 trigger view and the engineering-level reading from α's vantage. γ's PRA §4b + `gamma-closeout.md` §"§9.1 trigger assessment" are the canonical adjudication; α's reading is an input to γ's call, not a competing call.

### §9.1 trigger fires (α-side reading)

| Trigger | α-side reading | γ adjudication |
|---|---|---|
| Review rounds > 2 (target: 2) | Not fired (actual: 2). Target met. | Same. |
| Mechanical ratio > 20% with ≥ 10 findings | Not fired (actual: 0% / 4 findings). Floor not met. | Same. |
| Avoidable tooling / environmental failure | **Fired** (β-side observation): β's `Monitor` `git fetch --quiet` polling silently dropped α-branch SHA transitions. α did not directly observe this in α's session — operator surfaced β's commits manually ("A did something — didn't you see?" in reverse, with operator surfacing β's progress to α). The symmetric polling-failure pattern likely affected α's polling for `beta-review.md` updates as well; α did not collect direct evidence in α's session. β's `beta-closeout.md` §6 + γ's PRA cover the symptom + suspected mechanism. | γ disposed: project MCI → #287 AC8 (CDD §Tracking `git fetch --quiet` reliability rule). |
| Loaded skill failed to prevent a finding | **Fired.** F2/F3/F4 all landed in lifecycle skills (`release/SKILL.md`, `post-release/SKILL.md`); zero R1 findings landed in role skills despite the diff modifying all three role skills. The loaded skill (`alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 peer enumeration + §2.6 row 9 polyglot re-audit) is structurally correct, but α applied it to the wrong peer scope: role-skill peers were enumerated and audited; lifecycle-skill peers were not enumerated as a separate class, so they were not audited at the same depth. | γ disposed: immediate MCA landed in PRA window (`de85af0`) — `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 mandatory case "skill-class peers" with role-skill / lifecycle-skill class distinction. α has read the patch on main; α's next dispatch will load the patched skill. |

### Cycle level reading (α-side, for completeness)

- **L5 (local correctness):** the diff itself was locally correct on every commit. β's R2 residual scans (`beta-review.md` R2 §Narrowing) returned zero hits across the four post-fix scans (`origin/main`, `{role}.md`, bare `(alpha|beta|gamma).md`, PR refs). No mechanical errors reached review (mechanical ratio 0%). α's first commit `aac0607` was structurally invalidated by γ's mid-cycle issue edit, not by an α error — α correctly stopped, re-read, reworked in `1aaf9fb`. **Met.**

- **L6 (system-safe execution):** F2/F3/F4 reached review — three lifecycle-skill cross-surface drift items. The loaded skill (α §2.3) was structurally correct in mandating peer enumeration before closure claims, but α's application missed the role-skill / lifecycle-skill class distinction. γ landed the patch (skill-class peers mandatory case) in the PRA window, eliminating the application gap for future cycles. β's R1 caught the drift; α's R2 fixed it; no semantic ripple. **Partial miss** — drift reached review even though containment was clean.

- **L7 (system-shaping leverage):** the cycle's MCA itself is the L7 move — replaces a coordination protocol (PR-mediated) with one that eliminates a recurring friction class (PR polling). The structural change is visible in the diff (`CDD.md` §Tracking rewritten, polling table replaced, β / γ / operator polling snippets switched, `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.7 PR-creation override clause removed) and in the cycle's own use of the new protocol (cycle-dir on the cycle branch, β's verdict cherry-picked to exemplify the rule, γ's PRA-window skill patch landed via the new artifact channel rather than via PR comments). **Achieved on the diff axis.**

Per §9.1 "lowest miss" rule, these combine to **L6 cycle cap (with an L7 diff shipped, capped by the L6 lifecycle-skill peer-enumeration miss)**. γ revised the cycle cap further to L5 in the CHANGELOG row update (`2782b87`) — α records but does not contest the revision; γ has the cycle-economics view α does not.

## What worked

1. **γ's pre-distilled ACs.** The issue body carried 12 numbered, file-section-pinnable ACs and an explicit "Tier 3 skills: none beyond CDD Tier 1" declaration. α's AC mapping in `self-coherence.md` §AC Coverage is a 12-row table with file:line evidence per row; β's R1 §AC Coverage is the same row structure with verification per row. No interpretation gap between issue, primary branch artifact, and review. Same pattern as #268 (γ's audit-pre-distilled-into-ACs observation, α-side close-out observation #3).

2. **γ's mid-cycle F1 resolution unblocked α's R2 fix-round in one pass.** β's R1 explicitly named F1 as artifact-contract territory CDD.md governs and listed three candidate resolutions without picking. γ resolved to candidate (a) in `gamma-clarification.md` (`2f83095`) before α began the fix-round. α applied the resolution across the 5 surfaces β identified plus the three downstream mechanical-shape fixes (F2/F3/F4) in one commit (`fc50265`). β's R2 narrowing returned 0 findings. The pattern: when β returns RC with a finding requiring an upstream design call, the cycle's narrowing window depends on γ resolving before α fixes; γ's response time at `2f83095` was small enough that α's fix-round was a single-pass commit rather than a multi-round back-and-forth.

3. **Cherry-pick of β's R1 verdict preserved role-separation audit trail.** α picked γ's option 1 (cycle exemplifies its own rule) and cherry-picked β's R1 from `claude/implement-beta-skill-loading-ZXWKe@1ceb99c` onto the cycle branch as `8d78514`. Git authorship preserved (`author: beta <beta@cdd.cnos>`, `committer: alpha <alpha@cdd.cnos>`). β's R2 fidelity check (`diff <(git show 1ceb99c:beta-review.md) <(git show fc50265:beta-review.md)` returned identical) confirmed no content drift across the cherry-pick. Role-separation under the new protocol is git-observable via author + committer fields together; the cherry-pick mechanism extends the contract to mid-cycle migrations between branches without losing role attestation.

4. **Section-by-section authoring of `self-coherence.md` per CDD.md §1.4 large-file rule.** The file grew across 7+ targeted Edit calls (header + Mode → Impact graph → CDD Trace + AC Coverage → role self-check + Known debt + R1 Review-readiness → R2 fix-round summary). Each section was committed to disk before the next was drafted; no section ever lived only in α's session memory. The single-edit-write-and-report pattern is the same one this α-closeout uses now. No partial-recovery problem; no compaction-loss anxiety despite the file reaching 233 lines.

5. **Pre-review residual grep scans caught zero leftover drift after R2.** α ran four scans on the post-fix tree (`origin/main`, `{role}.md`, bare `(alpha|beta|gamma).md`, PR refs); β re-ran the same four scans independently in R2. All scans returned zero hits except for intentional matches (explicit prohibition phrases, merged-branch enumeration, historical evidence prose). The mechanical-shape-audit discipline is part of the reusable α toolkit; this cycle is one more N in its track record.

## What didn't

1. **Lifecycle-skill peer surfaces not enumerated as a separate class.** F2 / F3 / F4 — three of four R1 findings — landed in lifecycle skills (`release/SKILL.md`, `post-release/SKILL.md`). α's pre-review schema-shape audit (per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.6 row 6) verified the new canonical filename set across the role skills and the canonical-source matrix at `CDD.md` §5.3a + §Tracking, but stopped at the role-skill / canonical-source layer. The lifecycle skills are downstream of both, and the audit's checklist did not name them as a distinct peer class. The loaded skill (`alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 peer enumeration) is structurally correct in mandating peer enumeration before closure claims; α's application missed the role-skill / lifecycle-skill class distinction. γ landed the patch (`alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 mandatory case "skill-class peers") in commit `de85af0` during the PRA window — the patch is on main; α's next dispatch will load it.

2. **α did not surface γ's mid-cycle issue-body edits autonomously.** γ updated the issue body during α's first checkpoint window — moved from `.cdd/unreleased/{N}/{role}.md` to `.cdd/unreleased/{N}/` with role-distinguished filenames. α's session was working under the original AC text and made one full commit (`aac0607`) before the operator surfaced the edit ("It should be N/role"). α stopped, re-read the issue, and reworked in `1aaf9fb`. The polling discipline α was running (per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1 + `CDD.md` §Tracking) does not include issue-body diffs during the cycle — only issue comments. α relied on the operator as the wake-up channel for the issue edit. Surfaces: `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1 dispatch intake polling shape; `CDD.md` §Tracking issue-comments query.

3. **α's clarifying question on path notation produced a confirmation later superseded by an issue edit.** α detected the original `{N}/{role}.md` notation in the dispatched issue body (when the existing layout was `{role}/{N}.md`) and asked the operator before implementing. Operator response: "It should be N/role." α implemented `{N}/{role}.md` consistent with the operator's terse confirmation. Approximately 28 minutes later (per `git log` timestamps on the issue body's `updated_at` field vs α's first commit), the issue was edited to drop `{role}.md` entirely in favor of descriptive filenames. The operator's earlier confirmation answered the literal question α asked but was superseded by a structural change that α did not anticipate. Pattern observation: α's clarifying-question discipline is local to the question asked; it does not inoculate α against subsequent issue-body changes that re-frame the question.

4. **`git fetch --quiet` polling silent-failure pattern likely affected α as well as β.** β's `beta-closeout.md` §6 documented the symptom: `Monitor` task `git fetch --quiet origin` returning silently with stale refs, so per-iteration head-SHA comparison saw no transition and no `branch-update:` event was emitted. α's polling for `beta-review.md` updates uses the same `git fetch --quiet` pattern; the symmetric failure would be α not seeing β's R1 verdict land. α did not collect direct evidence in α's session — α was prompted by the operator at each transition (β's R1 verdict; γ's clarification; the issue edit; β's R2 approval). The data-collection gap is α-side: α did not log Monitor transitions vs. operator surfacings to attribute which wakeups came from which channel. γ folded the disposition into #287 AC8 (CDD §Tracking `git fetch --quiet` reliability rule) per the close-out triage table.

5. **α's first commit (`aac0607`) shipped the original AC text in 9 skill files.** Once γ's issue edit landed and α reworked, the rework was a per-file `replace_all` sweep from `.cdd/unreleased/{N}/{role}.md` → `.cdd/unreleased/{N}/{role}.md` (the surface form changed from one rigid shape to the flat-with-descriptive-names form, but the canonical filenames had to be picked and propagated consistently). α picked five canonical filenames (`self-coherence.md`, `beta-review.md`, `alpha-closeout.md`, `beta-closeout.md`, `gamma-closeout.md`) and threaded them through 9 skill files plus 7 file migrations in `1aaf9fb`. The picked-name set was correct in the round-1 final state (β's R1 AC Coverage marked AC11 partial only because of F2's authority-surface conflict, not because of a filename-set issue). Cost paid: α's first commit was a structurally invalidated WIP checkpoint. Cost saved: the second pass benefited from already having migrated the existing `268`/`278` cycle directories, so the second pass was a content edit, not a structural one.

## Observations and patterns (α-side)

These are α-side observations on cycle dynamics that complement β's `beta-closeout.md` §"Pattern observations on cycle dynamics" (6 items) and γ's `gamma-closeout.md` §"Independent γ process-gap check" (3 items). Where β / γ have already named a pattern with comparable evidence, α references their record rather than restating; α adds α-side detail where α had a vantage β / γ did not.

### O1 — Issue-edit-mid-cycle invalidates committed α work

**Pattern (concur with β-closeout #2 + γ-closeout #2).** γ's mid-cycle issue body edits (typo fix + path simplification) each individually correct under `gamma/SKILL.md` §2.5 unblock authority; α has no autonomous wake-up channel for the edit class; the operator was the wake-up surface. α-side detail: α's `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1 dispatch intake step 2 polls "the issue and `.cdd/unreleased/{N}/`" — but `CDD.md` §Tracking's issue-side query is "Issue comments" only (`gh issue view {N} --comments`). The issue body itself is not in the polling table; an `updated_at` watch or a body-diff watch would close the gap. Surfaces affected: `CDD.md` §Tracking polling table issue row; `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1 dispatch intake step 2; the symmetric β / γ rows in their respective dispatch flows.

**Evidence.** N=1 — this cycle. γ disposed in `gamma-closeout.md` (independent process-gap #2): "γ should batch issue-body edits and announce them on the cycle branch via `gamma-clarification.md` so β's polling sees the timing." γ's chosen disposition routes the edit through a known-polled surface (the cycle branch + `gamma-clarification.md` filename); the alternative — adding issue-body diffs to the polling table — was not chosen. α records the alternative without contesting the chosen disposition.

### O2 — Clarifying-question discipline is local to the question asked

**Pattern (α-side novel).** α detected the original `{N}/{role}.md` notation in the dispatched issue and asked the operator before implementing (α's clarifying-question discipline per `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1). Operator confirmed the literal notation. α implemented; the issue was later edited to a structurally different form. The clarifying-question discipline answered the question α asked but did not inoculate α against the subsequent issue-body change.

**α-side detail.** The operator's response — "It should be N/role" — was syntactically a confirmation of the path-component order. The semantic question (which neither α nor the operator named explicitly) was: "is the rigid-`{role}.md` shape correct, or is something else happening?" α did not surface that semantic question because the dispatched text already carried `{role}.md` as a settled choice. The pattern is α's clarifying-question scope: α asked the literal question (`{N}/{role}.md` vs. `{role}/{N}.md`) and got a literal answer; α did not surface the structural question (rigid vs. descriptive filename set) because the dispatched text did not flag it as open.

**Surfaces affected.** `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.1 step 4 ("enumerate every artifact the issue names") and §1.3 closure-overclaim failure mode. Neither currently names "questions α did not ask because the issue text presented a settled choice" as a separate audit surface. The pattern is small (N=1) and cousin to F4's same-class drift (γ's edit between α's first and second commits left a shape reference α did not catch in the second pass even with the rework).

### O3 — Lifecycle skills drift more than role skills under upstream contract changes

**Pattern (concur with β-closeout #4 + γ-closeout immediate-MCA disposition).** Three of four R1 findings landed in lifecycle skills (`release/`, `post-release/`); zero in role skills. β named the pattern as "lifecycle skills are downstream of role skills (`CDD.md` Conflict rule + Tier 1c pairing), and downstream surfaces drift more than upstream when an upstream contract changes." α's re-audit checklist did not distinguish the two peer classes.

**α-side detail.** The audit α ran covered the canonical-source matrix (`CDD.md` §5.3a) and the role skills (`alpha/SKILL.md`, `beta/SKILL.md`, `gamma/SKILL.md`) as the target peer set for the new canonical filename set. The lifecycle skills (`release/SKILL.md` §2.10, `post-release/SKILL.md` pre-publish gate + §5.6) were not on α's mental peer list as a separate class — they were treated as part of "everything else mentioned in the diff," which got a lighter pass. The audit was structurally complete on the role-skill class; the gap was not in the audit's depth on what it audited but in α's enumeration of what to audit.

**Surfaces affected.** `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 peer enumeration (γ patched in `de85af0` adding "skill-class peers" as a mandatory case with role-skill / lifecycle-skill class distinction). The patch is on main; α's next dispatch loads the patched skill. The pattern is now mechanized in the spec α loads.

**Evidence.** N=1 this cycle (3 of 4 R1 findings); cousin to #268 deletion-peer-enumeration miss (asymmetric peer enumeration on subtractive vs. additive contract changes — same shape: peer enumeration was correct on the obvious axis and incomplete on the unfamiliar axis).

### O4 — First-cycle-of-new-protocol pattern (irreducible)

**Pattern (concur with β-closeout #1 + γ-closeout triage table "drop with reason").** This cycle implements the protocol it operates under. α's first commit was made under the original AC text; β's first verdict landed on the harness-given β-side branch because the harness's branch instruction predated γ's F1 resolution; α's cherry-pick was the explicit choice to bring the cycle into self-application. γ classified as "drop with reason: irreducible — implementing cycle is always one half-step behind its output."

**α-side detail.** The lag is structural, but its cost is not constant. α's first commit was rework-able in one pass once γ's edit was surfaced (the canonical filename set picked itself once `{role}.md` was off the table). β's verdict cherry-pick was a single `git cherry-pick` with preserved authorship. The half-step lag did not produce a multi-cycle ripple — it produced one extra commit per role surface (α's `aac0607` checkpoint, β's `1ceb99c` β-branch verdict + `8d78514` cherry-pick). Whether the lag is acceptable depends on the size of the rework; for this cycle the rework was contained.

**Surfaces affected.** None α can name. γ's classification is correct on the irreducibility — a protocol cannot be tested by a cycle that pre-dates it. The surface that *can* be tightened is the rework cost: how cheap is the half-step rework? For #283 it was cheap because the change was textual; for a cycle with code + tests + integration the rework cost would be higher. No spec change α can name; pattern recorded for any future protocol-change cycle that wants to estimate its half-step rework cost.

### O5 — Cherry-pick mechanism is reusable across cross-branch role-artifact migrations

**Pattern (concur with β-closeout #5).** α's cherry-pick of β's R1 verdict from β's branch onto the cycle branch preserved git authorship (`author: beta`) while recording the committer as `alpha`. The role-separation contract (`review/SKILL.md` §7.1: "git author of `self-coherence.md` commits versus `beta-review.md` commits") held across the migration. β's R2 fidelity check confirmed zero content drift.

**α-side detail.** The mechanism is a one-line `git cherry-pick` that preserves enough metadata to satisfy the role-attestation contract. Three properties together carry the attestation: (a) the committer's git identity (proves who landed it on which branch), (b) the author's git identity (proves who originally authored the content), (c) the message text + structure (proves the intent — β's R1 review). All three survived the cherry-pick by default. This means the new protocol's "cycle branch holds all role artifacts" rule (γ's F1 resolution) does not require prophylactic discipline at dispatch time — if the harness pre-provisions a per-role branch, α can re-align via cherry-pick at any time without losing the attestation.

**Surfaces affected.** None mechanically — the pattern is already supported by `git cherry-pick` defaults. Worth recording as a cycle-portable technique for any cycle where harness-vs-spec timing creates a stranded artifact on a non-canonical branch.

### O6 — Section-by-section authoring + per-section progress reporting (this close-out is one)

**Pattern (α-side meta-observation).** `CDD.md` §1.4 large-file authoring rule mandates section-by-section writing for files ≥ 50 lines, reporting after each section. `self-coherence.md` (233 lines final) and this `alpha-closeout.md` (the file you are reading) were both authored under the rule. The operator named an explicit resume-on-interruption protocol for this close-out: "If interrupted and section isn't completed then resume automatically."

**α-side detail.** The protocol works by checking `## ` headers in the file at resume time — last header present = last section completed; resume at the next planned section. For this close-out the section sequence was: cycle summary → findings → cycle iteration → what worked → what didn't → observations and patterns → closing. Each section a single Edit call against a known-unique trailing string from the previous section. No section ever lived in α's session memory as a draft; each was committed to disk before the next was begun.

**Surfaces affected.** `CDD.md` §1.4 large-file authoring rule already names the discipline and applies to all roles + all CDD artifact types. The "resume on interruption" sub-protocol — last-`##`-header detection at resume — is implicit in the existing rule but not named explicitly. α records it as a pattern other roles may use; not naming it as a spec change request. β and γ already practice equivalent disciplines per their close-outs.

## Closing — handoff to γ

α's work for cycle #283 is complete with the commit of this close-out. The cycle artifacts at `.cdd/releases/3.61.0/283/` carry:

- `self-coherence.md` — α's gap, mode, impact graph, AC mapping (12/12 with R1 → R2 fix-round appendix), CDD Trace through 7a, role self-check, known debt, R2 review-readiness signal.
- `beta-review.md` — β's R1 REQUEST CHANGES verdict (4 findings) + R2 APPROVED verdict (0 findings); merge instruction; merge-time considerations.
- `gamma-clarification.md` — γ's mid-cycle F1 resolution (branch-polling canonical, one cycle branch holds all role artifacts; α picks self-application option).
- `beta-closeout.md` — β's review context + release evidence + cycle findings + inputs to γ's PRA.
- `gamma-closeout.md` — γ's close-out triage table + §9.1 trigger assessment + cycle iteration + deferred outputs (#287, #286) + next-MCA commitment + closure-gate state.
- `alpha-closeout.md` — this file. α-side cycle summary + findings recap + Cycle-Iteration α-side reading + what worked / what didn't + α-side observations and patterns.

**Closure-gate item 1** (per `gamma/SKILL.md` §2.10): satisfied with the commit of this file to `origin/main`. γ's closure declaration commit ("Cycle #283 closed. Next: #287.") was held pending this artifact per `gamma-closeout.md` line 93–104; γ may now write the declaration. δ then cuts the disconnect-release flow per `operator/SKILL.md` §3.4.

α has no remaining cycle work. On next γ dispatch α re-intakes per `alpha/SKILL.md` Load Order, loading the patched `alpha/SKILL.md` §2.3 (skill-class peers mandatory case landed at `de85af0`) — α's next-cycle peer-enumeration audit will distinguish role-skill peers from lifecycle-skill peers as a structural rule.

— α (`alpha@cdd.cnos`)


