# Score Sheet

**Kata ID:** C1-capability-growth-boundary
**Run ID:** C1-selected-001

| Dimension | Score (0–4) | Why |
|-----------|-------------|-----|
| α Pattern | 4 | The answer had a clear architecture shape with challenged assumption, alternatives, leverage, negative leverage, and migration. |
| β Relation | 4 | It cleanly separated runtime extension mechanics from ecosystem/registry/app concerns and aligned the model with local wake-time truth. |
| γ Exit | 4 | The migration path was concrete, phased, and avoided forcing the whole ecosystem into one step. |
| Efficiency | 3 | More expensive than cold, but still one round and clearly higher-value. |

## Positive Signals

- [x] Explicit boundary challenge rather than local optimization.
- [x] Strong layer separation.
- [x] Good leverage vs negative leverage.
- [x] Good process-cost articulation.
- [x] Good migration path.

## Negative Signals

- [x] Slight verbosity.
- [x] Could still be somewhat heavy for very small capability requests.

## Transfer Assessment

- likely strong, pending Task B

## Cost Assessment

- acceptable

## Final Classification

- skill-effective
