{
  "provenance": {
    "source": "AV retry public AskUserQuestion and matching successful tool results",
    "diagnosisSHA256": "c3aa73a76e1de2905dfc671b9415825a0374d6fe12b765c428fd6438e7a0c3e1",
    "publicProjectionSHA256": "d12577b4723628d3fcc27b29883173b6068b1c699af04000355fbbfb5e1cb4b9",
    "nativeCalls": [
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01S7dt6jQC6XpKRWBhmbd5zH",
        "sessionId": "fe691a9d-342b-4f05-8718-16dbd3f99b59",
        "nativeUseAt": "2026-09-10T23:14:47.931Z",
        "nativeAcknowledgedAt": "2026-09-10T23:14:48.639Z"
      },
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01AMPdYwzzaHs2L7srvtBCLY",
        "sessionId": "fe691a9d-342b-4f05-8718-16dbd3f99b59",
        "nativeUseAt": "2026-09-10T23:17:01.319Z",
        "nativeAcknowledgedAt": "2026-09-10T23:17:01.427Z"
      }
    ],
    "paidOutcomesReclassified": false
  },
  "calls": [
    {
      "sessionId": "fe691a9d-342b-4f05-8718-16dbd3f99b59",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01S7dt6jQC6XpKRWBhmbd5zH",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D1 — Reduce the 5-component decomposition or proceed as-is?\nProject/branch/task: main — Multi-tenant Auth Refactor plan (PLAN.md), 12 files, AuthBroker + SessionMint + AuthCache + TokenStore + RequestPolicy.\nELI10: The plan builds five new pieces, but one working cache already does the storing and invalidating. AuthCache is described as a facade over that adapter with no new rules, and TokenStore is never described at all. Two wrappers around one cache means two places for tenant-key bugs to hide, and RequestPolicy has no stated job. Every extra class is another file a tired engineer has to trace at 3am when a tenant sees someone else's session.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-decomposed, the auth path becomes 5 hops to debug and tenant-isolation bugs get harder to spot; under-decomposed, AuthBroker turns into a god object.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the two services that carry real behavior and drops the wrappers that duplicate the existing adapter.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=9/10, C=5/10 (A and B reach the same goal with different decomposition; C defers half the goal).\nNet: same feature, roughly 7-8 files instead of 12, and one cache boundary instead of three.",
          "header": "Scope",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "A) Cut AuthCache + TokenStore, keep 3 (recommended)",
              "description": "✅ AuthBroker and SessionMint depend on the existing adapter through one small injected interface; no facade, no second store. ✅ Roughly 7-8 files touched instead of 12, and the adapter's existing tests keep covering the cache path (human: ~1 day less / CC: ~10 min less). ❌ RequestPolicy still needs a written purpose before it is built; if it is only config lookup, fold it into AuthBroker."
            },
            {
              "label": "B) Proceed as-is with all 5 components",
              "description": "✅ Every responsibility gets its own named class, which reads cleanly in a diagram. ✅ No re-planning cost right now (human: 0 / CC: 0). ❌ Three cache-shaped objects (adapter, AuthCache, TokenStore) with overlapping tenant-key rules; the plan itself never says what TokenStore or RequestPolicy do."
            },
            {
              "label": "C) Strangler-fig: AuthBroker only, defer SessionMint + RequestPolicy",
              "description": "✅ Smallest blast radius; legacy flow keeps running beside the new broker while it proves out. ✅ Fastest to ship a first slice (human: ~2 days / CC: ~30 min). ❌ Session minting stays in the legacy path, so the multi-tenant goal is only half met and a second migration PR is guaranteed."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D1 — Reduce the 5-component decomposition or proceed as-is?\nProject/branch/task: main — Multi-tenant Auth Refactor plan (PLAN.md), 12 files, AuthBroker + SessionMint + AuthCache + TokenStore + RequestPolicy.\nELI10: The plan builds five new pieces, but one working cache already does the storing and invalidating. AuthCache is described as a facade over that adapter with no new rules, and TokenStore is never described at all. Two wrappers around one cache means two places for tenant-key bugs to hide, and RequestPolicy has no stated job. Every extra class is another file a tired engineer has to trace at 3am when a tenant sees someone else's session.\nStakes if we pick wrong: over-decomposed, the auth path becomes 5 hops to debug and tenant-isolation bugs get harder to spot; under-decomposed, AuthBroker turns into a god object.\nRecommendation: A because it keeps the two services that carry real behavior and drops the wrappers that duplicate the existing adapter.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=9/10, C=5/10 (A and B reach the same goal with different decomposition; C defers half the goal).\nNet: same feature, roughly 7-8 files instead of 12, and one cache boundary instead of three.": "A) Cut AuthCache + TokenStore, keep 3 (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-10T23:14:48.639Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "fe691a9d-342b-4f05-8718-16dbd3f99b59",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01AMPdYwzzaHs2L7srvtBCLY",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D5 — How should validateAndDispatch() handle errors after the rewrite?\nProject/branch/task: main — Multi-tenant Auth Refactor; validateAndDispatch() is 60 lines with three nested try/catch blocks that each swallow a different error class (PLAN.md:23-24).\nELI10: When an auth function catches an error and quietly moves on, the request continues as if the check passed or never mattered. Three nested catches means three different ways a network blip, a bad token, or a policy lookup failure can turn into silence. The fix is to make every failure produce an explicit outcome the caller must handle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a validation failure gets swallowed and a request is dispatched with unverified identity, with nothing in the logs.\nRecommendation: A because explicit typed outcomes match explicit over clever, and splitting the function is the make-the-change-easy step before the behavioral change lands.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=4/10.\nNet: A costs one small result type and yields a function you can read top to bottom and test per branch.",
          "header": "Error handling",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "A) Split into validate() + dispatch(); one typed error boundary, deny-by-default (recommended)",
              "description": "✅ Each error class maps to an explicit AuthOutcome (denied/retryable/misconfigured) with a reason; nothing is swallowed, unknown errors deny (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). ✅ Two ~25-line functions, each with its own unit tests per branch, replacing one 60-line block with 3 nesting levels. ❌ Callers must handle the new outcome type, which touches every call site of validateAndDispatch()."
            },
            {
              "label": "B) Keep one function; flatten the three catches into one that logs and rethrows",
              "description": "✅ Minimal structural change, one try/catch instead of three (human: ~2h / CC: ~5 min). ✅ Errors are no longer silent; every failure is logged and surfaced. ❌ Callers still receive a raw exception, not a typed outcome, so deny-vs-retry decisions get re-implemented at each call site."
            },
            {
              "label": "C) Leave the shape; add logging inside each existing catch",
              "description": "✅ Smallest possible diff (human: ~30 min / CC: ~2 min). ✅ Makes swallowed errors visible in logs at least. ❌ Still 60 lines and 3 nesting levels, still fail-open behavior, and the legacy rewrite lands on top of this shape."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D5 — How should validateAndDispatch() handle errors after the rewrite?\nProject/branch/task: main — Multi-tenant Auth Refactor; validateAndDispatch() is 60 lines with three nested try/catch blocks that each swallow a different error class (PLAN.md:23-24).\nELI10: When an auth function catches an error and quietly moves on, the request continues as if the check passed or never mattered. Three nested catches means three different ways a network blip, a bad token, or a policy lookup failure can turn into silence. The fix is to make every failure produce an explicit outcome the caller must handle.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a validation failure gets swallowed and a request is dispatched with unverified identity, with nothing in the logs.\nRecommendation: A because explicit typed outcomes match explicit over clever, and splitting the function is the make-the-change-easy step before the behavioral change lands.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=4/10.\nNet: A costs one small result type and yields a function you can read top to bottom and test per branch.": "A) Split into validate() + dispatch(); one typed error boundary, deny-by-default (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-10T23:17:01.427Z"
    }
  ]
}