tech-debt: ONNX>Chronos gap + archetype/persona/style epiphany candidates

Two additional breadcrumb subsections appended to the 2026-04-24
Frankenstein blast radius entry:

ONNX > Chronos — documents what § 17's 6-criterion table captures
(Output / Task type / Training / Precision / Infra / Fit) and flags
the gap: the table enumerates where Chronos loses but not where
Chronos would legitimately win. My first-principles candidate-XYZ
list (temporal forecasting: F-value N cycles ahead, style-drift
onset, gate-commit-rate rolling window) is explicitly marked NOT
session-attributable so the next session either fills from their
own recall or rejects Chronos across all cases.

Archetype / persona / thinking-style modeling — lists three
epiphany candidates that sit in § 16 / § 17 plan text but were never
prepended to EPIPHANIES.md (board-hygiene violation from commit
468357d): four-way multiply as architecture search, persona as
atom-space coordinate, MM-CoT stage split as faculty asymmetry.
Framings provided for the next session to prepend as dated entries.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01CgQyZ7rMWkCEohrPzEiwkD

Author: claude

.claude/board/TECH_DEBT.md

@@ -157,6 +157,24 @@ Next session: add an explicit disambiguation paragraph to DU-2 and to `callcente
 
 **Archetype × Chronos interplay — NOT captured anywhere.** The user grouped "archetype and chronos" together as joint brainstorming content. The plans treat them as independent deliverables (DU-1 Chronos-replacement, DU-2 Archetype-bridge). Whether they compose (e.g. Archetype tick driving ONNX-classifier-as-style-oracle at each tick, feeding Blackboard rounds) is **not documented**. Candidate composition: `ArchetypeTick → UnifiedStep → CollapseGate fire → ONNX classifier predicts next (role, style) → next tick's PersonaCard` — but this is my conjecture, not session-attributable, so flagging as an **open design question** for the next session rather than writing it into a plan.
 
+### ONNX > Chronos — what's in plans vs what's missing
+
+§ 17 of `callcenter-membrane-v1.md` (commit `468357d`) holds a 6-criterion "Why ONNX over Chronos" table: **Output** (1D scalar vs 288 logits) · **Task type** (forecasting vs classification) · **Training** (pre-trained vs Lance E-DEPLOY-1 corpus) · **Precision** (style axis vs role × thinking product) · **Infra** (separate model vs `ort` crate justified by Jina v5 ONNX on disk) · **Fit** (partial vs full product).
+
+**Gap:** the table enumerates where Chronos LOSES but not where Chronos WOULD LEGITIMATELY WIN. User flagged "Chronos only useful for XYZ" as a piece of brainstorm content not captured. I do NOT hold session-attributable XYZ content. Reasoning from first principles (NOT session-attributable, flag if reused): Chronos is appropriate when the task is genuinely temporal forecasting — predicting next F-value N cycles ahead, predicting style-drift onset, predicting gate-commit-rate over a rolling window, auxiliary time-series heads on the Lance internal_cold timeline. These would compose with (not replace) the ONNX classifier's instantaneous prediction. The next session should either fill the XYZ from their own brainstorm recall, or explicitly reject Chronos across all use cases.
+
+### Archetype / persona / thinking-style modeling — epiphany candidates not yet in EPIPHANIES.md
+
+§ 16 and § 17 hold modeling insights that sit in plan docs but have NOT been promoted to dated entries in `.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md`:
+
+- **Four-way multiply = architecture** (§ 17): `(persona 288 × style 36 × stage 2 × learned-dynamics)` ≈ 20 736 × oracle configurations; F-descent IS the automatic architecture search over this space; misaligned configurations are dropped by the CollapseGate predicate. Epiphany framing: *free-energy minimisation over the four-way product = neural-architecture search without an outer optimiser*.
+- **Persona as function** (§ 16): 32 cognitive atoms × 16 weightings = 16^32 addressable persona space, compressed to 56-bit PersonaSignature. YAML runbooks are macro scaffolding for the context loop, not persona identity. Epiphany framing: *persona identity is a coordinate in atom-space, not a YAML artefact; the YAML is a program on the context loop*.
+- **MM-CoT stage split = faculty asymmetry** (§ 17 row): `rationale_phase: bool` maps to `FacultyDescriptor::is_asymmetric()` (inbound_style ≠ outbound_style). Epiphany framing: *MM-CoT rationale-vs-answer split is NOT a new axis — it reuses the existing faculty asymmetry from the contract*.
+
+**Already in EPIPHANIES.md:** `E-DEPLOY-1` (commit `5dbdf25`) captures the Supabase-shape thinking-extension 9-dim joint epiphany. The three candidates above are NOT yet prepended there. Board-hygiene rule from CLAUDE.md requires EPIPHANIES entries in the same commit as the plan additions — this session violated that rule for § 16 / § 17.
+
+Next session action: prepend three dated EPIPHANIES.md entries using the framings above, cross-referenced to § 16 / § 17 / commit `468357d`. Do NOT write additional modeling content I don't hold; if the next session has richer brainstorm recall, let them author from that rather than inheriting my reconstruction.
+
 ### Correction plan for next session (P0 order)
 
 1. **Delete** `callcenter-membrane-v1.md` § 18 (lines 1139-1224).