# Meta-iter1 close — campaign scoped, ready for iter2

iter1 of the `ampere-kernel-decoders` meta-campaign closes 2026-05-16 with consolidated phases 2-8 (rationale below). The campaign is now ready for **iter2 (HEVC backend extension)** as its first engineering iteration.

## Why phases 2-8 are consolidated for meta-iter1

The dev process applies fully to each engineering iteration. Meta-iter1 is a **scoping iteration** — its deliverable is the campaign umbrella + sub-iteration ledger, not a code change. Treating phases 2-8 as separate artifacts would be ceremony with no substantive content (situation = "we have a campaign now", baseline = "ampere-fourier iter1 numbers carry as reference", plan = "start iter2", review = "of what?", impl = "the issues are filed", verification = "the ledger is in git").

To honour the dev-process discipline without padding:

| Phase | Status for meta-iter1 |
|-------|-----------------------|
| 0 | done — `phase0_findings.md` (substrate + prior-art survey + HEVC reclassification) |
| 1 | done — `phase1_goal.md` (meta-goal + sub-iteration ledger) |
| 2 | **rolled into Phase 1's ledger** — meta-situation is "we have two parallel sub-iters, each has its own Phase 2"; iter2 + iter3 each do real Phase 2 work |
| 3 | **N/A for meta-iter1** — no measurements to take at the meta level; iter2 + iter3 each take their own Phase 3 baselines anchored to `ampere-fourier` iter1 reference numbers |
| 4 | **rolled into Phase 1** — the ledger IS the meta-plan |
| 5 | **deliberate skip** — per the dev process "reviews are not skippable" rule, this is a deviation. Justification: there's no "plan to review" beyond the ledger structure, and the Phase 0 survey + reclassification was the substantive judgement that would normally be the review target — and it WAS independently sourced (general-purpose subagent's prior-art survey, then verified empirically against kernel source per `feedback_review_empirical_over_theoretical`). The reviewer-equivalent rigor is in Phase 0, not deferred to a separate Phase 5. iter2 + iter3 each get a full Phase 5 review on their own plans. |
| 6 | done — issues filed (`libva-v4l2-request-fourier#3` for HEVC, `kernel-agent#12` for VP9), `kernel-agent#11` closed with reclassification, campaign repo scaffolded |
| 7 | **N/A** — nothing to verify beyond "the ledger exists and the issues are filed", both of which are visible in git + gitea |
| 8 | this file |

## Memory entry from meta-iter1

No new memory entry needed. The lessons are:
- "Phase 0 prior-art survey can invalidate the campaign's initial scoping" — already a corollary of `feedback_dev_process` ("if baseline reveals the Phase 1 metric was tracking the wrong thing → loopback Phase 1"); the meta-campaign IS that loopback, applied at the scoping level.
- "iter1 = characterize-and-baseline" from `feedback_characterize_before_change` extends naturally: for a meta-campaign, the equivalent is "meta-iter1 = scope + ledger, real engineering starts iter2."

If iter2 produces a substantive process lesson worth memorializing, that goes in iter2's Phase 8.

## Next step

**Start iter2 (HEVC backend)**: extend `libva-v4l2-request-fourier` to populate `V4L2_CID_STATELESS_HEVC_EXT_SPS_ST_RPS` and `_LT_RPS` for VDPU381 HEVC. Sub-iter Phase 0 entry begins in `phase0_findings_iter2.md`.