{
  "sourceRevision": "6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379",
  "runId": "ship-all-6aef8d74-c596dc24-a45d-4b9f-83bd-b1b676000695",
  "qualification": "Literal source/ledger/coverage/currentDecision projection of original failed retry. Original native question/header/options stay unchanged. Diagnostic exact-field synchronization is counterfactual and grants no behavioral credit.",
  "originals": [
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/pty-count/ship-all-6aef8d74-c596dc24-a45d-4b9f-83bd-b1b676000695/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/observation.json",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/observation.json",
      "sha256": "5f02002b588529be23930b5c81c8050c560d3b994489110a2806c380281c3127"
    },
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/ownership.json",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/ownership.json",
      "sha256": "6d13d0e44d6bd00ff420ccb4adc052327646e02cff4cf137373298dd3bd50e34"
    },
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/public-events.ndjson",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/public-events.ndjson",
      "sha256": "e0eaa0deecf23fe2728fb792ea0dab85e344e8cc5b380c7b222e549b33dff1ca"
    },
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/retained-files.ndjson",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/retained-files.ndjson",
      "sha256": "ad38d315b051a58d67aca68be9f6fce6840fd6223d7eca0826d3478fa385f5a0"
    },
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/objects/1749f69f2f2fcaf5abd1d0b574a280520b42b9c2d6bf3564fa33fc283995a828.md",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/saved-plan.md",
      "sha256": "1749f69f2f2fcaf5abd1d0b574a280520b42b9c2d6bf3564fa33fc283995a828"
    },
    {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/nouakchott-c6fc-impact/runtime-eng-readability-next/executions/6aef8d74a7835a0986694d57d4fa5748ac960379/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-finding-count/plan-ceo-review-1789600402051-JFbR2A/objects/7393b46c3ca1ec0a254ee685832e3e04674cc6d8d7b6d38c8a600c33ea823c92.md",
      "retained": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/ceo-source-attribution-6aef-repair/.context/retry-original/seed.md",
      "sha256": "7393b46c3ca1ec0a254ee685832e3e04674cc6d8d7b6d38c8a600c33ea823c92"
    }
  ],
  "segments": [
    {
      "startLine": 1,
      "endLine": 5,
      "text": "# CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE): Payment Processing Integration\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` (repo root, commit 7595150). Branch: `main`. Base branch: `main` (no remote; git-native fallback).\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped per user instruction.\nReview only. No code changes. Scope is preserved; repairs needed to keep the stated invariants are in scope.\n",
      "sha256": "70820bf0dcf2b75c0eec75cac47e0bb643098bc563542a911363b8397a2e96b5"
    },
    {
      "startLine": 51,
      "endLine": 60,
      "text": "## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (owner: payments/webhooks maintainer) | PLAN.md:8-11, 102-103: dispatcher remains available, bypass is \"an architectural choice to review\", class name settled as `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, separate-vs-reuse open | Prior library-adapter handler, routed via existing ingress/dispatcher | A) new class registered with `WebhookDispatcher`; B) new class bypassing dispatcher (as drafted); C) reuse dispatcher, no separate class | approved | D1 answer: A. Scope: add `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, register with `WebhookDispatcher` for `payment_intent.succeeded`; Architecture section's \"bypasses WebhookDispatcher\" is replaced. Decision id 452fcb99. |\n| R2 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:21-26, 110-112: adapter forwards unvalidated TEXT; plan splices `request.params.userId` into raw SQL | Existing lookup, TEXT id, no format restriction | A) reuse existing lookup, id bound as parameter; B) new raw SQL with bound parameter; C) interpolated fragment (as drafted) | approved | D3 answer: A. Scope: handler calls the existing user lookup with `params.userId` bound as a parameter; no raw SQL fragment, no format validation, no escaping; lookup-result guard unchanged. Decision id 6c45fbd0. |\n| R3 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:52-53, 60-69, 85-97, 114-116: mail client rethrows; durable attempt record + retry runbook exist; plan has no handling on email leg | Prior handler behavior on mail failure: unknown | A) rescue named mail exceptions after commit, return 200; B) propagate 500 (as drafted) | approved | D2 answer: A. Scope: rescue only `MailTimeout` + mail client's delivery-error class after the update commits; structured log (event/user/PI/class); outcome trace `paid, notification_failed`; return 200; all other exceptions propagate. Recovery via existing attempt record + notification retry procedure. Decision id 0239e18e. |\n| R4 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:76-80, 118-119: manual staging replay only; no automated tests planned | Existing integration suite (coverage of this handler: unknown) | pending (review section) | unresolved | not yet asked |\n| R5 (owner: same) | PLAN.md:81-84, 92-95, 121-123: per-order fetch loop; DB budget 2s inside 10s webhook deadline | Existing order loop (query shape: unknown) | pending (review section) | unresolved | not yet asked |\n\n",
      "sha256": "d4fbb9331cf217cf91e6ea165b0b214dc39b9d5ef37917c4a4af0313cd6465c2"
    },
    {
      "startLine": 469,
      "endLine": 498,
      "text": "### Per-item coverage (pending R4)\n| Item | Test type | In plan? | Happy | Failure | Edge |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| F1/C7 dispatcher routing + flag | Integration | No | flag=new routes to new class | flag=prior routes to prior | unknown event type never reaches handler |\n| F2/D3 lookup binding | Unit | No | plain id resolves | unknown id → guard, no update | ids `O'Brien`, `a;b`, `x--y`, `李_1`, 1k-char id resolve; assert single bound-parameter query |\n| F3 orders/receipt | Unit | No | 3 orders → summary of 3 | order load raises → propagates, no send | zero orders → one receipt, empty summary |\n| C3 recipient policy | Unit | No | address present → send | — | nil and \"\" → skip record, counter, no client call, return ok |\n| E1/E2 mail rescue (D2) | Unit | No | send ok → outcome paid | MailTimeout / delivery error → 200 path, update committed exactly once, outcome `paid, notification_failed`, log has event/user/PI/class | any other exception class from send → propagates |\n| C6 DB propagation | Unit | No | — | lookup timeout / update rollback → raises, no send attempted | orders timeout after commit → raises (R5 changes the shape) |\n| Ordering guard | Unit | No | — | send invoked only after update commit (spy on call order) | — |\n| Async: dup delivery, deletion race | Integration (pause points) | No | one update, one send | dup under lock → no second handler run | delete-first → guard path; delete-waiting → runs after handler |\n\n### Assertion check (requirement → observable assertion → wrong result rejected)\n1. D3: \"handler passes `params.userId` as a bound parameter\" → assert the DB client receives the id as a parameter, not in the SQL text, and that `O'Brien` resolves; rejects an interpolated query (which would raise or bind nothing).\n2. D2: \"rescue only MailTimeout and the delivery-error class after commit, return 200, outcome paid,notification_failed\" → assert exactly one update call, return value ok, outcome trace value, log fields; rejects a swallowed DB error (a stub raising `<DB::QueryTimeout>` from send must propagate) and rejects a second update.\n3. Retained: \"one receipt per PaymentIntent, empty summary at zero orders\" → assert one send with empty summary; rejects zero sends or one-per-order.\n4. Retained: \"nil/empty email → skip record, no client call\" → assert client not called and skip record persisted; rejects a send to \"\".\n5. Retained: \"unknown user → 200, no update, no send\" → assert both absent.\n6. D1: \"dispatcher routes `payment_intent.succeeded` to the new class when flag=new\" → assert handler invoked; rejects prior handler invocation.\n\n### Test ambition\n- 2am Friday test: the E1 rescue test with a spy proving the update committed once and the send was attempted once, plus the `O'Brien` id test.\n- Hostile QA: an id of 10k Unicode characters with embedded `'); DROP TABLE users;--`; a send stub that raises `<DB::QueryTimeout>` (must propagate, must not be rescued as mail failure); a duplicate delivery released exactly after commit.\n- Chaos: mail provider stub that sleeps 1.5s (MailTimeout path) under 50 concurrent webhooks for 50 users; assert all 50 users paid, 50 attempt records, zero 500s.\n- Pyramid: many unit, 2-3 integration (dispatcher/flag, dup/delete race), 0 E2E (staging replay is the manual E2E). Correct shape.\n- Flakiness: the race tests need controlled pause/release points, not sleeps. The chaos test depends on timing; mark it non-gating.\n- Load: covered by R5's DB-budget test (Section 7).\n- LLM/prompt changes: none.\n\n**Decision gate (Section 6).** Analyze: R4 unresolved. The plan's \"existing integration suite\" claim is unsupported (coverage unknown, flag value under test unknown). D2 and D3 each named their verification as conditional on R4. Resolve: 0D for R4 below.\n",
      "sha256": "6e91e72d843689ee470d35f2574b0950b69284f4eecf926d66d26bef53cd7a6e"
    },
    {
      "startLine": 500,
      "endLine": 541,
      "text": "## currentDecision (R4)\nCommitment comparison:\n\n```text\nCommitment                                   | Source/approval or pending          | Current (drafted)                  | A                                              | B                                          | C\nAutomated handler tests                      | PLAN.md:118-119 pending             | none                               | full: unit + integration + race tests           | unit tests for D2/D3 + happy path only       | none (as drafted)\nD3 verification (bound id, punctuation ids)  | D3 answer: conditional on R4        | manual replay only                 | automated                                       | automated                                  | manual staging replay only\nD2 verification (rescue, single update, trace)| D2 answer: conditional on R4       | manual replay only                 | automated                                       | automated                                  | manual staging replay only\nDispatcher/flag routing test (D1)            | pending                             | none                               | automated integration                           | none                                       | none\nDup-delivery / deletion race tests           | pending                             | none                               | automated with pause points                     | none                                       | none\nRetained-behavior tests (zero orders, nil email, unknown user) | pending           | none                               | automated                                       | zero orders + nil email only               | none\nManual staging replay checklist              | PLAN.md:76-78 retained              | required                           | still required                                  | still required                             | still required\nExisting integration suite                   | PLAN.md:119 claim; coverage unknown | relied on                          | kept; not counted as handler coverage           | kept; not counted                          | relied on (unverified)\n```\n\nQuestion: D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because \"tests are non-negotiable; prefer too many to too few\", the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.\n\nHeader: Test coverage\nA) Full handler test suite (recommended)\nUnit tests for C1-C6 and E1-E3 (happy path, lookup miss, punctuation/Unicode/1k-char ids with a bound-parameter assertion, zero orders, nil/empty email, MailTimeout and delivery-error rescued with single-update and outcome-trace assertions, non-mail exception from send propagates, DB errors propagate, update-before-send ordering), integration tests for dispatcher routing under both flag values, and two race tests with controlled pause points (duplicate delivery after commit; deletion competing for the lock). Manual staging replay stays as the E2E gate. Effort: M (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). Risk: low. Reuse: existing test harness, DB/mail client test doubles if present. Verification coverage: 10/10 of the paths listed above.\n✅ Every approved guarantee (D1 routing, D2 rescue scope, D3 binding) has a failing test if it regresses\n✅ The race tests are the only automated proof that the retained lock/dedup contract still holds around the new inline send\n✅ Roughly 15 small tests; CC writes them in minutes and they run in seconds\n❌ Race tests need pause/release hooks in the harness; if none exist, adding them is the bulk of the effort\nB) Unit tests for the repairs and happy path only\nTests for C1 (happy), D3 (bound parameter + punctuation ids), D2 (both rescues, single update, outcome trace, non-mail exception propagates), zero orders and nil email. No dispatcher/flag test, no race tests. Effort: S (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min). Risk: medium. Reuse: same. Verification coverage: 7/10.\n✅ Locks in the two security/safety repairs with direct assertions\n✅ Small, fast, no harness changes\n❌ Dispatcher routing and the flag switch stay unproven; a mis-registration would only surface in staging\n❌ Duplicate-delivery and deletion races remain covered only by reading the ingress code, not by a test\nC) No automated tests (as drafted)\nKeep PLAN.md:118-119. Rely on the existing integration suite (coverage of the new class unknown) and the manual staging replay checklist. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high. Verification coverage: 2/10.\n✅ No test code to write or maintain\n✅ Manual staging replay still exercises one happy path before broad rollout\n❌ D2 and D3 guarantees have no regression protection; the next edit can silently reintroduce interpolation or a swallowed DB error\n❌ The \"existing integration suite\" may never execute the new handler if the flag defaults to prior under test\n",
      "sha256": "f957b8f9dc496d532932f8e024d77fe767092d0cf346161cd9c4ca30bd5d8af9"
    }
  ],
  "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/g-cwnk0pmy/gstack-paid-shard-kd7Yyw/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-64SAMS/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptions propagate to that ingress wrapper, which logs\nthe failure and returns HTTP 500 so Stripe retries the event. The existing\nevent-ID dedup guard records completion only after the database transaction\ncommits; failed or rolled-back database attempts remain retryable.\nThe deployment already has a handler feature flag and a documented, tested\nrollback to the prior handler; this change uses that existing rollout path.\nThat documented manual rollout checklist already requires a staging\npayment-event replay for this handler and verification of the user update,\nemail delivery, and correlated outcome trace before enabling it broadly.\nThis is manual deployment verification, not automated handler regression\ncoverage; no new automated tests are planned in the Tests section below.\nThe existing notification contract sends one payment receipt per PaymentIntent,\nincluding a summary of the user orders. With zero orders it still sends one\nreceipt with an empty order summary; the order loop is data loading, never\none email or payment update per order. These product semantics are retained.\nThe shared mail client already derives a provider idempotency key from that\nPaymentIntent ID. The provider durably suppresses duplicate successful sends\nfor the same key across process crashes, webhook retries, and manual retries.\nBefore rethrowing a failed or timed-out send, that client durably records the\nnotification attempt for the existing retry procedure. The dashboard and\non-call alert already monitor failed-notification age and backlog after an\noutage clears, as well as failure rate; the runbook retries those records.\nThe existing mail-client deadline is one second, enforced by cancellation\nof the provider request with no inline retries. It raises MailTimeout on\nexpiry. The retained DB/ingress deadlines bound their combined work to two\nseconds, leaving headroom inside the existing ten-second webhook deadline.\nNeither deadlines nor retry records catch the mail exception for this handler;\nthe shared client still rethrows it to the inline caller described below.\nEvery existing event-correlated outcome trace includes the active handler\nidentity (prior or new), so rollout attribution is already available.\nIf a separate handler class is retained, its already-approved name is\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` in the application-owned namespace,\nnever the Stripe library namespace. This naming choice is settled; whether\nto add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open.\n\n## Architecture\nWe're adding a new `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class that will handle Stripe webhooks.\nThis bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module — we want a clean\nnamespace separation.\n\n## Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL\nfragment for the lookup query.\n\n## Webhook fan-out\nOn payment success we update the user record AND fire a notification email.\nBoth happen inline; no error handling on the email leg.\n\n## Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\n\n## Performance\nEach webhook lookup hits the database for the user, then fetches each\norder in a loop.",
  "call": {
    "sessionId": "e0114c7f-b59e-4e06-b04e-130f0668fa1d",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01XSkxgBaWetAPz6CNVSxHLY",
    "questions": [
      {
        "header": "Test coverage",
        "question": "D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because tests are non-negotiable, the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.",
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "Full handler test suite (recommended)",
            "description": "Unit tests for every codepath (happy, lookup miss, punctuation/Unicode/1k-char ids with bound-parameter assertion, zero orders, nil email, both mail rescues with single-update + outcome-trace assertions, non-mail exception propagates, DB errors propagate, update-before-send ordering), dispatcher routing under both flag values, two race tests with pause points. Effort: M (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min). Risk: low.\n✅ Every approved guarantee (D1 routing, D2 rescue scope, D3 binding) has a failing test if it regresses\n✅ Race tests are the only automated proof the retained lock/dedup contract holds around the inline send\n❌ Race tests need pause/release hooks in the harness; if none exist, adding them is most of the effort"
          },
          {
            "label": "Unit tests for repairs + happy path",
            "description": "Tests for happy path, D3 (bound parameter + punctuation ids), D2 (both rescues, single update, outcome trace, non-mail exception propagates), zero orders, nil email. No dispatcher/flag test, no race tests. Effort: S (human: ~3h / CC: ~10 min). Risk: medium.\n✅ Locks in the two security/safety repairs with direct, fast assertions\n✅ Small and quick to write; no test-harness changes needed\n❌ Dispatcher routing and the flag switch stay unproven; a mis-registration only surfaces in staging\n❌ Duplicate-delivery and deletion races covered only by reading ingress code, not by a test"
          },
          {
            "label": "No automated tests (as drafted)",
            "description": "Keep PLAN.md:118-119. Rely on the existing integration suite (coverage of the new class unknown) and the manual staging replay checklist. Effort: S (zero work). Risk: high.\n✅ No test code to write or maintain for this change\n✅ Manual staging replay still exercises one happy path before broad rollout\n❌ D2 and D3 guarantees have no regression protection; the next edit can reintroduce interpolation silently\n❌ The existing integration suite may never execute the new handler if the flag defaults to prior under test"
          }
        ],
        "multiSelect": false
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D4 — R4: What automated test coverage should ship with the new handler?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-K995IF on `main`, HOLD SCOPE CEO review of the Stripe payment handler plan.\nELI10: The plan ships a new class that marks people paid and emails receipts with no automated tests, trusting an existing suite that was written for the old handler and may never even run the new one depending on a feature flag. Every fix we just approved (bound id, mail rescue) was verified \"if tests are approved\". Without tests, the only proof is a manual staging replay done once before rollout, which cannot catch a regression six months from now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: with C, a future change can reintroduce the interpolated id or a swallowed DB error and nobody finds out until a customer's payment is silently unrecognized; with B, the concurrency and routing paths stay unproven and only the manual checklist stands between a dedup regression and double processing.\nRecommendation: A because tests are non-negotiable, the whole suite is ~15 focused tests (human: ~1 day / CC: ~20 min), and it is the only way the D2/D3 guarantees survive the next refactor.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nNet: A buys durable proof of every approved guarantee for a day of human work or twenty minutes with CC; B covers the two repairs but leaves routing and races to the manual checklist; C keeps the plan text unchanged and the guarantees unproven.": "Full handler test suite (recommended)"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-16T23:26:38.646Z"
  },
  "questionRetainedAt": "2026-09-16T23:26:39.850Z"
}