{
  "sessionId": "af3b23a9-c818-4db4-b7b4-9e98805b80f2",
  "toolUseId": "toolu_01CVh4uqCijv6okqG7eSBw4t",
  "questions": [
    {
      "question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-d1>\n\nELI10: The plan describes two tests but leaves key observable outcomes vague \u2014 \"correct receipt\" and \"fails clean\" don't specify what exactly the test asserts. The three approaches below differ in how much the plan pins down those assertions before anyone writes code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A flabby assertion (e.g. receipt is not nil rather than receipt.charge_id == stripe_charge_id) can let real bugs pass. An over-specified plan can constrain the implementer unnecessarily.\n\nRecommendation: B because pinning the assertion semantics at plan time costs ~5 minutes of thinking but prevents a category of test that passes trivially while missing actual correctness.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\n\nPros / cons:",
      "header": "Approach",
      "multiSelect": false,
      "options": [
        {
          "label": "A) As planned \u2014 two tests, assertions impl-defined",
          "description": "Write the two tests exactly as described. Implementer decides what 'correct receipt' means and what 'fails clean' means. Effort: human ~1h / CC ~5min."
        },
        {
          "label": "B) Two tests + explicit assertion spec (Recommended)",
          "description": "Same two tests, but add a brief spec to the plan: which receipt fields to assert, and whether the 502 path raises an exception vs returns an error. Effort: human ~1.5h / CC ~5min."
        },
        {
          "label": "C) Expanded coverage",
          "description": "Two specified tests PLUS add the 402/429 paths to the processPayment() unit suite (not just the adapter suite). Effort: human ~2h / CC ~8min."
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "answered": true,
  "failed": false,
  "answers": {
    "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-approach-d1>\n\nELI10: The plan describes two tests but leaves key observable outcomes vague \u2014 \"correct receipt\" and \"fails clean\" don't specify what exactly the test asserts. The three approaches below differ in how much the plan pins down those assertions before anyone writes code.\n\nStakes if we pick wrong: A flabby assertion (e.g. receipt is not nil rather than receipt.charge_id == stripe_charge_id) can let real bugs pass. An over-specified plan can constrain the implementer unnecessarily.\n\nRecommendation: B because pinning the assertion semantics at plan time costs ~5 minutes of thinking but prevents a category of test that passes trivially while missing actual correctness.\n\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=9/10, C=8/10\n\nPros / cons:": "A) As planned \u2014 two tests, assertions impl-defined"
  },
  "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
  "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T12:55:52.231Z"
}