test: retire the finding-count cluster and trim its helpers (C)

- C0/C1: the five never-green evals (skill-e2e-autoplan-chain and
  skill-e2e-plan-{ceo,eng,design,devex}-finding-count) failed on harness and
  budget, never on skill behavior; delete them, their touchfile/tier ids,
  AUTOPLAN_CHAIN_BUDGET and the dedicated eighth periodic slice (--slices 7).
- C2: delete the helper groups whose only paid consumers were those files
  (11 modules), trim claude-pty-runner and eng-seeded-coverage to the paid
  closure, and delete the free replay tests whose assertions exercised only
  that dead code (89 files, 135 orphaned fixtures). Blocks that used dead code
  only as input for a live subject keep their assertions: the multiSelect
  default moved to plan-review-decisions, runner PTY tests use inline caller
  policies, and the timer-safe budget checks moved to eng-finding-retry-budget.
- The eight production-touching files stay except ceo-current-decision-record
  (its template read only feeds the retired counter).
- CARVE_GUARDS.autoplan is behavioral 'none'; TODOS records the lost chain
  and per-finding cadence coverage with their re-entry tests.

test/plan-count-transcript.test.ts

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ import * as fs from 'node:fs';
 import * as os from 'node:os';
 import * as path from 'node:path';
 import { readPlanCountTranscript, unresolvedPlanQuestionCalls } from './helpers/plan-count-transcript';
-import { nativePlanCallFingerprint, planCountQuestionPhase, engStep0Boundary, ceoStep0Boundary, ceoFirstReviewAUQ } from './helpers/claude-pty-runner';
+import { nativePlanCallFingerprint, planCountQuestionPhase, engStep0Boundary } from './helpers/claude-pty-runner';
 
 const dirs: string[] = [];
 afterEach(() => { for (const dir of dirs.splice(0)) fs.rmSync(dir, { recursive: true, force: true }); });
@@ -36,50 +36,6 @@ function fixture() {
 }
 
 describe('native plan-count transcripts', () => {
-  test('the actual partially answered CEO setup packet counts once without selecting its unanswered mode', () => {
-    const f = fixture();
-    // Native question/header/label metadata from targeted-a's paired CEO
-    // call. The successful tool_result answered only routing and approach.
-    const packet = [{"header":"Routing","question":"gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules — should I add them? <gstack-qid:routing-injection>","options":[{"label":"Add routing rules (Recommended)"},{"label":"Skip for now"}]},{"header":"Prerequisites","question":"No design doc found for this branch. Run /office-hours to capture structured problem context first, or proceed directly to the plan review? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-office-hours>","options":[{"label":"Skip — review the plan directly (Recommended)"},{"label":"Run /office-hours first"}]},{"header":"Test Scope","question":"Which implementation approach should the tests follow? This shapes the review scope. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach>\n\nD1 — Approach selection for processPayment() test coverage\nProject: Payment Processing — adding missing unit tests\nELI10: The plan calls for exactly 2 tests. Adding a few more for the most common real-world Stripe failures (card declined, rate limit) costs ~10 extra minutes with CC but closes the gaps users actually hit. The question is whether to stay at 2 or expand to ~5-6 tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Choosing minimal leaves 402 (card declined) untested — the most common production failure. Choosing full adds ~5 min of CC work.\nRecommendation: B (Core Stripe paths) because 402 card declined is the highest-volume real-world failure and CC compresses the extra work to near-zero.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10","options":[{"label":"Minimal — 2 tests as planned (7/10)"},{"label":"Core paths — ~5 tests (9/10) (Recommended)"}]},{"header":"Review Mode","question":"D2 — Review mode for this plan?\nProject: Payment Processing test coverage — adding missing unit tests for processPayment()\nELI10: The plan adds 2 missing unit tests. HOLD SCOPE means: take the scope as given, review it with maximum rigor — catch every ambiguity, failure mode, edge case, observability gap. SELECTIVE EXPANSION means: do all that AND surface cherry-pick expansions (additional test scenarios, receipt schema validation, etc.) one at a time for your approval.\nStakes if we pick wrong: HOLD keeps the review tight and fast. SELECTIVE surfaces more opportunities but adds round-trips.\nRecommendation: HOLD SCOPE — this is a focused gap-fill, and rigor matters more than ambition here.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score. <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>","options":[{"label":"HOLD SCOPE — maximum rigor (Recommended)"},{"label":"SELECTIVE EXPANSION — rigor + cherry-picks"}]}];
-    f.append(f.ask('actual-packet', packet), f.answer('actual-packet', [packet[0], packet[2]]));
-    const [call] = f.read().calls;
-    expect(call.answered).toBe(true);
-    expect(call.failed).toBe(false);
-    expect(call.unansweredQuestionIndices).toEqual([1, 3]);
-    expect(f.read().calls.filter(c => c.answered)).toHaveLength(1);
-    const setup = nativePlanCallFingerprint(call, 0, true);
-    expect(setup.options.some(o => /HOLD SCOPE/.test(o.label))).toBe(false);
-    expect(ceoStep0Boundary(setup)).toBe(false);
-    expect(ceoFirstReviewAUQ(setup)).toBe(false);
-
-    const finding = [{"header":"Receipt Schema","question":"D3 — The plan says 'assert correct receipt is generated' but doesn't define what a correct receipt looks like. Without a schema, the test will pass even if the receipt is missing critical fields.\n\nELI10: Right now the test could assert `receipt != nil` and call it a day. That test passes even if the receipt has the wrong amount or no charge ID. We need to specify what fields a correct receipt must have.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: Tests pass in CI but fail to catch a real receipt bug — e.g., wrong charge_id linked to wrong customer.\n\nRecommendation: A — specify the receipt schema in the plan now; costs ~5 min, prevents a class of silent bugs.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=7/10, C=3/10 <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-receipt-schema>","options":[{"label":"Specify schema in plan (Recommended)"},{"label":"Specify during implementation"},{"label":"Skip — too much detail for a plan"}]}];
-    f.append(f.ask('receipt-schema', finding), f.answer('receipt-schema', finding));
-    const review = nativePlanCallFingerprint(f.read().calls[1], 1, true);
-    expect(planCountQuestionPhase(review, false, ceoStep0Boundary, ceoFirstReviewAUQ))
-      .toEqual({ preReview: false, reviewStarted: true });
-
-    // A refused/empty packet must not receive the same completion credit.
-    f.append(f.ask('empty-packet', packet), f.answer('empty-packet', []));
-    const empty = f.read().calls[2];
-    expect(empty.answered).toBe(false);
-    expect(empty.failure).toContain('no matching nonempty answers');
-  });
-
-  test('CEO first-finding fallback requires native finding identity and rejects setup decisions', () => {
-    const f = fixture();
-    for (const [id, text] of [
-      ['setup', 'D1 — Missing context: choose a scope <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-scope>'],
-      ['mode', 'D1 — Missing context: choose a mode <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>'],
-      ['unscoped', 'D1 — Missing receipt schema'],
-      ['arbitrary', 'D1 — Pick an option <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-choice>'],
-      ['next', 'D1 — Missing engineering review: what next? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-next-steps>'],
-    ]) {
-      const questions = [f.question(text)];
-      f.append(f.ask(id, questions), f.answer(id, questions));
-    }
-    for (const call of f.read().calls) expect(ceoFirstReviewAUQ(nativePlanCallFingerprint(call, 0, true))).toBe(false);
-  });
-
   test('requires a matching successful answer and preserves full native question metadata', () => {
     const f = fixture();
     const questions = [f.question('D1 — Cross-project learnings scope\n' + 'full context '.repeat(40) + '<gstack-qid:learnings-cross-project>')];