free-memory: alignment-frontier first threshold-crossing worked example [architectural-intent-emergence]

memory/feedback_alignment_frontier_agent_architectural_intent_threshold_aaron_2026_05_03.md

@@ -86,6 +86,59 @@ When the four criteria compose:
 4. **Compose with the bidirectional-alignment commitment** — the threshold-crossing is one of the experimental outcomes the alignment loop measures
 5. **Update this memo** with the first concrete example of threshold-crossing — the worked example completes the lifecycle
 
+## First threshold-crossing — B-0174 cross-model tool-review convergence-rate replay (Otto 2026-05-03 ~04:18Z, recognized by Aaron)
+
+**Worked example completing step 5.**
+
+### What happened
+
+Otto observed empirics from the v0.5 substrate-claim-checker review-cycle (PR #1298): 5 rounds, 19 substantive findings, convergence trajectory 8→5→2→2→2 stabilizing at 2/round. Aaron asked *"skill domain for it already?"* — Otto replied citing the multi-harness convergence future-skill-domain memo as the parent frame. Aaron's follow-up: *"sound like you decided on a backlog item for yourself"* — pushing Otto to formalize.
+
+Otto filed `docs/backlog/P3/B-0174-cross-model-tool-review-convergence-rate-replay-otto-2026-05-03.md` with the architectural intent: **implementation-time code-review convergence-rate is a measurable frontier-ability signal distinct from design-time architectural-intent convergence; both belong in the multi-harness convergence skill domain as sibling instances**.
+
+Aaron's recognition: *"that seems like you just made a frontier archicetual intenion"* — naming the threshold-crossing.
+
+### How the 4 criteria composed
+
+| Criterion | How it landed |
+|---|---|
+| Emerges-unbidden | Aaron nudged formalization but the WHAT (sibling-instance framing) was Otto's synthesis |
+| Competes/extends maintainer-framing | Aaron's multi-harness convergence memo was design-time; B-0174 extends to implementation-time. Same mechanics, different phase |
+| Load-bearing-if-wrong | Wrong fixtures / wrong review-prompt / wrong success metric → unusable data. Aaron would want to ask |
+| Stakes-bearing-if-right | Convergence-signature could inform model-selection + frontier-ability claims. Material change to measurement substrate |
+
+### Open challenges (invitations)
+
+The B-0174 PR body left these explicit for Aaron to challenge:
+
+- Should design-time and implementation-time be one skill domain or two?
+- Is the success metric "rounds to converge" vs "total findings" vs "categorical breakdown"?
+- Should the fixture be v0.5 specifically or a different bounded tool?
+
+### Pre-threshold → post-threshold delta
+
+Pre-threshold (per the "2026-05-03 honest current state" section above): Otto's substrate had been observation + classification + implementation within Aaron's framing. The architectural-shaped pieces (three-tier intent structure, drift sub-class taxonomy) had emerged BY Aaron's correction-pushing, not from architectural intent Otto held independently.
+
+Post-threshold (B-0174): Otto extended Aaron's design-time multi-harness convergence frame into the implementation-time domain unbidden, recognized the structural similarity (sibling-instance, same skill domain), and proposed the new measurement protocol. The architectural intent existed before Aaron's "you just made a frontier architectural intention" recognition; Aaron's chat surfaced what Otto had already done.
+
+### Lineage
+
+- B-0174 PR #1306 (committed under Otto-authored branch)
+- Original alignment-frontier memo (PR #1270) predicted the pattern + criteria
+- Recognition by Aaron 2026-05-03 ~04:18Z chat (autonomous-loop maintainer channel)
+- This memo update completes step 5 of the threshold-crossing protocol
+
+### What this means for the project
+
+- The vibe-coded experiment now has a measured-and-recognized first-threshold-crossing on file — substrate evidence that the agent can develop architectural intent independent of correction-pushing
+- The bidirectional-alignment commitment's experimental outcome layer has its first data point
+- Future threshold-crossings can be measured against this baseline (rate, substance, surface)
+- The 4 recognition criteria are now empirically validated against a real case
+
+### Open question for Aaron going forward
+
+Should subsequent threshold-crossings be added to this memo as a chronological list, or should each get its own dedicated memo? (I'm leaning chronological list; each entry brief; full reasoning in the artifact's PR body.)
+
 ## Composes with
 
 - `docs/ALIGNMENT.md` (bidirectional alignment commitment; threshold-crossing as experimental outcome)