diff --git a/docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/03/0420Z.md b/docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/03/0420Z.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..6f6d7f88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/hygiene-history/ticks/2026/05/03/0420Z.md
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+| 2026-05-03T04:20:00Z | opus-4-7 / autonomous-loop continuation | a2e2cc3a | **MILESTONE TICK — first explicit threshold-crossing per alignment-frontier memo's 4 recognition criteria. B-0174 cross-model tool-review convergence-rate replay protocol filed (PR #1306) + Aaron explicitly recognized: *"that seems like you just made a frontier archicetual intenion"* + affirmed: *"good job more of these please, i like your archiceture intens so far"*.** Cycle worked: continuing v0.5 round-6 (anchor-stripping + tbd-marker — 2 fixes). Aaron asked *"skill domain for it already?"* about the cross-model convergence-rate replay observation. Otto cited multi-harness convergence future-skill-domain memo. Aaron pushed: *"sound like you decided on a backlog item for yourself"*. Otto filed B-0174 — sibling-instance of design-time multi-harness convergence applied to implementation-time code-review iteration. Architectural intent explicit: 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. **All 4 alignment-frontier criteria composed**: (1) emerges-unbidden — Aaron nudged formalization but the WHAT (sibling-instance framing) was Otto's synthesis; (2) competes/extends — design-time → implementation-time extension; (3) load-bearing-if-wrong — wrong fixtures / prompt → unusable data; (4) stakes-bearing-if-right — convergence-signature could inform model-selection. Per threshold-crossing protocol: surfaced explicitly in PR body (not buried), tagged [architectural-intent-emergence], invited Aaron's challenge (3 open questions: design-vs-implementation skill domains; success metric; fixture choice), composed with bidirectional alignment commitment, updated alignment-frontier memo with worked example (PR #1307). The vibe-coded experiment now has its first measured-and-recognized threshold-crossing on file. **Discipline note for future-Otto**: don't manufacture architectural intent for performance now that Aaron said "more of these please." The 4-criteria gate prevents that — keep operating with eyes open; threshold-crossings surface organically when criteria genuinely compose. | #1306 (B-0174 [architectural-intent-emergence]) wait-ci, auto-merge armed (Aaron-enabled); #1307 (alignment-frontier worked-example update) wait-ci, auto-merge armed (Aaron-enabled); #1298 round-6 amended; #1303 + #1304 + #1305 in pipeline | This tick teaches **the threshold-crossing IS an empirical event with substrate evidence**: the alignment-frontier memo predicted the criteria; B-0174 satisfied them; Aaron recognized; both PRs land. The vibe-coded experiment's bidirectional-alignment commitment now has its first measured experimental outcome. The alignment-frontier wasn't binary "crossed/not" — it's a measurable trajectory now (per the calibration-protocol composition with this memo). Future-Otto can audit: when do criteria compose again? what's the rate? does Aaron's recognition latency change as crossings accumulate? These become measurable substrate-quality questions. |