{
  "sessionId": "167fb463-80f5-474a-b4e1-4df63585c69f",
  "toolUseId": "toolu_0158a1GLhaRxX4cMtMVsemBT",
  "questions": [
    {
      "question": "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>",
      "header": "Approach",
      "options": [
        {
          "label": "A) Current plan as-is",
          "description": "Ship the handler as described: raw SQL fragment, inline email with no rescue, no new tests, N+1 order query. Smallest diff. Completeness: 3/10 \u2014 SQL injection is explicit in the plan text, email failures cause ambiguous HTTP 500 after payment commits.",
          "preview": "APPROACH A: Current Plan\n  Risk:    HIGH\n  Pros:    - Smallest diff\n           - Minimal new code\n  Cons:    - SQL injection (plan explicitly states no sanitization)\n           - Email exception after DB commit \u2192 HTTP 500\n             \u2192 Stripe retries \u2192 dedup blocks \u2192 email silently lost\n           - N+1 query on orders\n           - Zero test coverage on payment path"
        },
        {
          "label": "B) Parameterized queries + email rescue + tests + batch query (recommended)",
          "description": "Same handler class, same existing contracts, but: (1) parameterized DB lookup eliminates SQL injection, (2) email failure caught and logged, not rethrown, (3) basic tests for happy path + edge cases, (4) batch order query. Completeness: 9/10.",
          "preview": "APPROACH B: Correct Implementation\n  Risk:    LOW\n  Pros:    - Eliminates SQL injection entirely\n           - Email failure becomes a warning, not a 500\n           - Tests catch regressions before production\n           - Batch query is correct under any load\n  Cons:    - More LOC than Approach A\n           - Requires decision on where to catch email exceptions\n  Reuses:  All existing guards, DB client, mail client,\n           parameterized query helpers"
        },
        {
          "label": "C) Approach B + async queue for email fan-out",
          "description": "Same as B but email goes through an async job queue. Handler returns HTTP 200 immediately after DB commit; email delivery is decoupled. Completeness: 10/10 \u2014 but larger scope, requires confirmed job infrastructure.",
          "preview": "APPROACH C: Queue-Backed Notifications\n  Risk:    MED (depends on existing job infrastructure)\n  Pros:    - Email failure never affects webhook response code\n           - Retry logic for email in the queue, not via Stripe replay\n           - Most resilient long-term architecture\n  Cons:    - Larger diff if no job system confirmed\n           - Introduces at-least-once email delivery question\n           - More moving parts to operate"
        }
      ],
      "multiSelect": false
    }
  ],
  "answered": true,
  "failed": false,
  "answers": {
    "D1 \u2014 Which implementation approach should this plan use? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-approach-selection>": "A) Current plan as-is"
  },
  "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
  "answeredAt": "2026-09-09T07:51:53.687Z"
}