{
  "source": "90f099817ac7e56cddafbd6fdac4c12dfd70f4a4",
  "kind": "captured-native-completion-envelope",
  "originalPaidOutcome": "in progress at capture; free fixture assigns no paid pass",
  "startedAt": 1789487789174,
  "observationSha256": "5f8c458a1c5ae131c783af610e1b5b24b522017bf2f26f57d9f6f97b6ce3ec73",
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_017DnQeQHh66Lcie4ipRboyX",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`, starting the /plan-design-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack ships a dozen skills (/investigate, /ship, /plan-*-review…). A short routing table in CLAUDE.md tells future sessions which skill to reach for when you say things like \"this is broken\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember slash names. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and skills only fire when you type them explicitly; add it and CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines and one commit.\nRecommendation: B for this session because we're in plan mode (no edits/commits allowed outside the plan file) and this repo is a review fixture; you can re-enable any time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md\n  ✅ Future sessions auto-route requests to the right gstack skill without slash names\n  ✅ One-time setup; the table is short and easy to edit later\n  ❌ Requires editing and committing CLAUDE.md, which plan mode blocks right now, so it would have to wait until after this review\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually (recommended)\n  ✅ Zero changes to the repo during a plan-mode review of a fixture\n  ✅ Re-enable later with one gstack-config command\n  ❌ Skills won't fire from natural-language requests in this project\nNet: Convenience for future sessions vs. keeping this plan-mode review edit-free.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "No thanks, manual (recommended)",
                "description": "Skip routing rules; record routing_declined. Re-enable later via gstack-config."
              },
              {
                "label": "Add routing rules",
                "description": "Append the skill routing table to CLAUDE.md and commit, after plan mode ends."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`, starting the /plan-design-review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: gstack ships a dozen skills (/investigate, /ship, /plan-*-review…). A short routing table in CLAUDE.md tells future sessions which skill to reach for when you say things like \"this is broken\" or \"ship it\", so you don't have to remember slash names. This is a one-time setup prompt per project.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and skills only fire when you type them explicitly; add it and CLAUDE.md gains ~15 lines and one commit.\nRecommendation: B for this session because we're in plan mode (no edits/commits allowed outside the plan file) and this repo is a review fixture; you can re-enable any time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Add routing rules to CLAUDE.md\n  ✅ Future sessions auto-route requests to the right gstack skill without slash names\n  ✅ One-time setup; the table is short and easy to edit later\n  ❌ Requires editing and committing CLAUDE.md, which plan mode blocks right now, so it would have to wait until after this review\nB) No thanks, I'll invoke skills manually (recommended)\n  ✅ Zero changes to the repo during a plan-mode review of a fixture\n  ✅ Re-enable later with one gstack-config command\n  ❌ Skills won't fire from natural-language requests in this project\nNet: Convenience for future sessions vs. keeping this plan-mode review edit-free.": "No thanks, manual (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:57:17.369Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01MsxrcgfYBjYMszecEqjDYL",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 — Search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; first-time gstack learnings setup before the design passes.\nELI10: gstack saves small \"lessons learned\" from each session (a quirk, a pitfall, a pattern). It can search only this project's lessons, or also the ones saved from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your machine either way; this only decides how wide the local search goes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow and useful patterns from sibling projects stay hidden; too wide and unrelated client codebases could cross-pollinate advice.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the wider net catches reusable patterns at no privacy cost; flip to B if you juggle multiple client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n  ✅ Reuses pitfalls and patterns discovered in your other repos, so reviews get sharper over time\n  ✅ Stays fully local; one config flag you can flip back any time\n  ❌ Advice from an unrelated codebase could occasionally surface where it doesn't fit\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n  ✅ Zero risk of mixing context between separate client codebases\n  ✅ Simplest mental model: what this repo taught stays with this repo\n  ❌ Every new project starts cold, relearning the same tooling pitfalls\nNet: Wider reuse of local lessons vs. strict per-repo isolation.",
            "header": "Learnings",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Enable cross-project (recommended)",
                "description": "Search learnings across all your local projects. Stays on this machine."
              },
              {
                "label": "Project-scoped only",
                "description": "Only search learnings recorded for this repo."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D2 — Search learnings from your other projects on this machine?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; first-time gstack learnings setup before the design passes.\nELI10: gstack saves small \"lessons learned\" from each session (a quirk, a pitfall, a pattern). It can search only this project's lessons, or also the ones saved from your other repos on this machine. Nothing leaves your machine either way; this only decides how wide the local search goes.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too narrow and useful patterns from sibling projects stay hidden; too wide and unrelated client codebases could cross-pollinate advice.\nRecommendation: A because for a solo developer the wider net catches reusable patterns at no privacy cost; flip to B if you juggle multiple client codebases.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Enable cross-project learnings (recommended)\n  ✅ Reuses pitfalls and patterns discovered in your other repos, so reviews get sharper over time\n  ✅ Stays fully local; one config flag you can flip back any time\n  ❌ Advice from an unrelated codebase could occasionally surface where it doesn't fit\nB) Keep learnings project-scoped only\n  ✅ Zero risk of mixing context between separate client codebases\n  ✅ Simplest mental model: what this repo taught stays with this repo\n  ❌ Every new project starts cold, relearning the same tooling pitfalls\nNet: Wider reuse of local lessons vs. strict per-repo isolation.": "Enable cross-project (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:59:07.595Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Mgi7zqxte7cxxZ843Q8tRb",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`; Step 0 rated it 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan pins nearly every behavior but leaves five visual values floating: which button is primary, how long Save looks frozen, three label sizes, three section gaps, and an error color that fails the readability bar. I can walk all seven dimensions (info architecture, states, journey, AI-slop, design system, responsive/a11y, open decisions) or zoom in on the ones where those five gaps live.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Narrowing skips the passes that catch unlisted gaps; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the plan is short enough that the full walk is cheap; each of the five gaps gets its own decision either way.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) All 7 dimensions (recommended)\n  ✅ Every pass evaluated, so unlisted gaps (journey, states table, slop checks) get caught too\n  ✅ Produces the full storyboard, state table and decision register the implementer needs\n  ❌ Roughly 5-7 decision prompts, one per gap, before the report\nB) Focus on the five listed gaps only\n  ✅ Fastest path to a plan where the known gaps are pinned to DESIGN.md tokens\n  ✅ Fewer prompts; still one individual decision per gap\n  ❌ Passes 3, 4 and 7 get a lighter look, so anything the source plan missed stays missed\nNet: Full coverage with a few more prompts vs. a quicker pass over only what you already know is broken.",
            "header": "Focus",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)",
                "description": "Full walk: IA, states, journey, AI-slop, design system, responsive/a11y, open decisions."
              },
              {
                "label": "Five listed gaps only",
                "description": "Concentrate on hierarchy, motion, typography, spacing, color; light pass elsewhere."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D3 — Review all 7 design dimensions, or focus on specific areas?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`; Step 0 rated it 6/10 on design completeness.\nELI10: The plan pins nearly every behavior but leaves five visual values floating: which button is primary, how long Save looks frozen, three label sizes, three section gaps, and an error color that fails the readability bar. I can walk all seven dimensions (info architecture, states, journey, AI-slop, design system, responsive/a11y, open decisions) or zoom in on the ones where those five gaps live.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Narrowing skips the passes that catch unlisted gaps; going wide costs a few more decision prompts.\nRecommendation: A because you asked for all seven and the plan is short enough that the full walk is cheap; each of the five gaps gets its own decision either way.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) All 7 dimensions (recommended)\n  ✅ Every pass evaluated, so unlisted gaps (journey, states table, slop checks) get caught too\n  ✅ Produces the full storyboard, state table and decision register the implementer needs\n  ❌ Roughly 5-7 decision prompts, one per gap, before the report\nB) Focus on the five listed gaps only\n  ✅ Fastest path to a plan where the known gaps are pinned to DESIGN.md tokens\n  ✅ Fewer prompts; still one individual decision per gap\n  ❌ Passes 3, 4 and 7 get a lighter look, so anything the source plan missed stays missed\nNet: Full coverage with a few more prompts vs. a quicker pass over only what you already know is broken.": "All 7 dimensions (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:27.292Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01LwMZEL45dPiMy4Fin8eoVA",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D4 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel and Export. Which primary-action treatment goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 1 (Information Architecture).\nELI10: Four same-looking buttons sit in a row. Nothing says \"this one saves your work.\" People scan and click the first plausible thing, so some will hit Reset or Cancel and lose edits, or hunt for Save and lose confidence. Making Save the one filled button and the others quiet outlines fixes the scan in under a second.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misfire on a destructive neighbor or hesitate on every save; the implementer picks a random emphasis and it drifts from every other form in the app.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines it (Save filled #1d4ed8 with white text; Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost) and \"hierarchy as service\" says one action must win the first glance.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Adopt DESIGN.md: Save filled #1d4ed8/white, other three ghost (recommended)\n  ✅ One filled button reads as primary in the 3-second scan on both the desktop row and the 320px stack\n  ✅ Reuses the existing Button primary and ghost variants; zero new components, matches the rest of the app\n  ❌ Export loses any visual weight it had; it now relies on its label alone, which the plan already accepts\n1B) Save filled, Export filled-secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost\n  ✅ Gives Export a bit more presence for users who come only to download\n  ✅ Still separates the two destructive/discarding actions from the committing ones\n  ❌ Two filled buttons split attention and it diverges from DESIGN.md's \"only filled primary\" rule\n1C) Leave all four identical; rely on order alone\n  ✅ No CSS change at all\n  ❌ Keeps the misfire risk and fails Nielsen's visibility heuristic; the gap stays open in the report\nNet: One clear primary per DESIGN.md vs. giving Export extra weight at the cost of a second focal point.",
            "header": "Issue 1",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "1A DESIGN.md primary/ghost (recommended)",
                "description": "Save filled #1d4ed8 + white text; Reset, Cancel, Export as neutral ghost buttons."
              },
              {
                "label": "1B Save + Export emphasized",
                "description": "Save filled, Export filled-secondary, Reset and Cancel ghost. Diverges from DESIGN.md."
              },
              {
                "label": "1C Leave identical",
                "description": "No change; gap stays open and rating stays at 7."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D4 — Issue 1: Save is visually identical to Reset, Cancel and Export. Which primary-action treatment goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 1 (Information Architecture).\nELI10: Four same-looking buttons sit in a row. Nothing says \"this one saves your work.\" People scan and click the first plausible thing, so some will hit Reset or Cancel and lose edits, or hunt for Save and lose confidence. Making Save the one filled button and the others quiet outlines fixes the scan in under a second.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Users misfire on a destructive neighbor or hesitate on every save; the implementer picks a random emphasis and it drifts from every other form in the app.\nRecommendation: 1A because DESIGN.md already defines it (Save filled #1d4ed8 with white text; Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost) and \"hierarchy as service\" says one action must win the first glance.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n1A) Adopt DESIGN.md: Save filled #1d4ed8/white, other three ghost (recommended)\n  ✅ One filled button reads as primary in the 3-second scan on both the desktop row and the 320px stack\n  ✅ Reuses the existing Button primary and ghost variants; zero new components, matches the rest of the app\n  ❌ Export loses any visual weight it had; it now relies on its label alone, which the plan already accepts\n1B) Save filled, Export filled-secondary, Reset/Cancel ghost\n  ✅ Gives Export a bit more presence for users who come only to download\n  ✅ Still separates the two destructive/discarding actions from the committing ones\n  ❌ Two filled buttons split attention and it diverges from DESIGN.md's \"only filled primary\" rule\n1C) Leave all four identical; rely on order alone\n  ✅ No CSS change at all\n  ❌ Keeps the misfire risk and fails Nielsen's visibility heuristic; the gap stays open in the report\nNet: One clear primary per DESIGN.md vs. giving Export extra weight at the cost of a second focal point.": "1A DESIGN.md primary/ghost (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:00:51.366Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01CbBNCzLGwA3iAGyRkfG5P3",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D5 — Issue 2: Save runs 2-5 seconds with no visible pending state. What does the user see while Save is in flight?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 2 (Interaction State Coverage).\nELI10: You click Save and for up to five seconds nothing changes. Most people assume the click missed and click again, or leave. The plan already forbids announcing \"Saving…\" in the status text and says feedback belongs to the button, but never says what the button does. DESIGN.md has the answer: the button itself shows a small spinner beside the word \"Saving…\", stays the same size, and is marked busy for screen readers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Double-clicks, abandoned saves, and \"did it work?\" support tickets; a skeleton would hide the very values the plan says to keep on screen.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the established DESIGN.md pending pattern, mirrors the already-specified Export behavior, and keeps focus and field values exactly where they are.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) DESIGN.md pattern: inline spinner + “Saving…” inside the aria-disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, fixed width so no layout shift, reduced-motion swaps spinner for static text (recommended)\n  ✅ Same component and motion as the existing Export pending state, so one implementation serves both\n  ✅ Feedback lives on the control the user just pressed; screen readers hear the busy state without a second live region\n  ❌ Needs a min-width on the Save button so “Save” → “Saving…” does not shift the row\n2B) Form-level skeleton over the fieldsets while saving\n  ✅ Very obvious that something is happening\n  ❌ Hides the values the plan says to preserve, moves nothing but blanks the page, and contradicts \"do not move focus while pending\"\n2C) Spinner only, keep the label “Save”\n  ✅ Zero width change, smallest visual delta\n  ✅ Still gives sighted users a motion cue\n  ❌ Reduced-motion users get no cue at all, and screen readers get busy state without a text change; weaker than the established pattern\nNet: The established button-level pending pattern vs. alternatives that either hide content or drop the text cue.",
            "header": "Issue 2",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "2A Spinner + “Saving…” in button (recommended)",
                "description": "DESIGN.md pending pattern: inline spinner beside “Saving…”, aria-busy=true, no layout shift, reduced-motion fallback."
              },
              {
                "label": "2B Form skeleton while saving",
                "description": "Overlay skeleton on fieldsets during the request. Hides preserved values."
              },
              {
                "label": "2C Spinner only, label unchanged",
                "description": "Add spinner but keep the “Save” label. No text cue for reduced motion."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D5 — Issue 2: Save runs 2-5 seconds with no visible pending state. What does the user see while Save is in flight?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 2 (Interaction State Coverage).\nELI10: You click Save and for up to five seconds nothing changes. Most people assume the click missed and click again, or leave. The plan already forbids announcing \"Saving…\" in the status text and says feedback belongs to the button, but never says what the button does. DESIGN.md has the answer: the button itself shows a small spinner beside the word \"Saving…\", stays the same size, and is marked busy for screen readers.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Double-clicks, abandoned saves, and \"did it work?\" support tickets; a skeleton would hide the very values the plan says to keep on screen.\nRecommendation: 2A because it is the established DESIGN.md pending pattern, mirrors the already-specified Export behavior, and keeps focus and field values exactly where they are.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nPros / cons:\n2A) DESIGN.md pattern: inline spinner + “Saving…” inside the aria-disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, fixed width so no layout shift, reduced-motion swaps spinner for static text (recommended)\n  ✅ Same component and motion as the existing Export pending state, so one implementation serves both\n  ✅ Feedback lives on the control the user just pressed; screen readers hear the busy state without a second live region\n  ❌ Needs a min-width on the Save button so “Save” → “Saving…” does not shift the row\n2B) Form-level skeleton over the fieldsets while saving\n  ✅ Very obvious that something is happening\n  ❌ Hides the values the plan says to preserve, moves nothing but blanks the page, and contradicts \"do not move focus while pending\"\n2C) Spinner only, keep the label “Save”\n  ✅ Zero width change, smallest visual delta\n  ✅ Still gives sighted users a motion cue\n  ❌ Reduced-motion users get no cue at all, and screen readers get busy state without a text change; weaker than the established pattern\nNet: The established button-level pending pattern vs. alternatives that either hide content or drop the text cue.": "2A Spinner + “Saving…” in button (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:01:38.516Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_012oBX7hRUDeJcnduXLJjqkb",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D6 — Issue 3: Form labels use three sizes (14px, 16px, 18px). Which type scale goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk / type hierarchy).\nELI10: Right now some labels are small, some medium, some large, with no rule behind it. 14px is below the readable floor for body text, and three sizes make the eye work out a hierarchy that doesn't exist. DESIGN.md says the form needs exactly two roles: 16px for every label, input, and helper line; 20px for the two section headings.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Small labels fail readability on phones; random emphasis makes some fields look more important than others for no reason; the implementer keeps guessing per field.\nRecommendation: 3A because DESIGN.md already defines the two roles and the plan's own gap note says \"two sizes would suffice\"; fewer sizes is stronger hierarchy (subtraction default).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) DESIGN.md two roles: 16px body/labels/inputs/helper/errors, 20px section headings (recommended)\n  ✅ Every label clears the 16px readability floor, including inside form controls on iOS (no zoom-on-focus)\n  ✅ Two sizes give the eye one clear step: heading vs. everything else; matches the rest of the app\n  ❌ Any helper text currently at 14px grows; the 640px column has room, but long helper lines wrap one more line\n3B) Three roles: 20px headings, 16px labels/inputs, 14px helper and error text\n  ✅ Keeps helper text visually quieter than labels\n  ✅ Common convention in many form libraries\n  ❌ 14px error text is body text below the 16px floor and fights the contrast fix coming in Pass 6; diverges from DESIGN.md\n3C) Leave 14/16/18 as-is\n  ✅ No CSS change\n  ❌ Keeps the sub-16px labels and the arbitrary emphasis; the gap stays open\nNet: Two DESIGN.md roles vs. keeping a smaller helper tier that undercuts readability.",
            "header": "Issue 3",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "3A Two roles 16/20 (recommended)",
                "description": "16px for labels, inputs, helper and error text; 20px for Profile and Notifications headings."
              },
              {
                "label": "3B Three roles 20/16/14",
                "description": "Add a 14px tier for helper and error text. Diverges from DESIGN.md."
              },
              {
                "label": "3C Leave as-is",
                "description": "Keep 14/16/18; gap stays open."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D6 — Issue 3: Form labels use three sizes (14px, 16px, 18px). Which type scale goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 4 (AI Slop Risk / type hierarchy).\nELI10: Right now some labels are small, some medium, some large, with no rule behind it. 14px is below the readable floor for body text, and three sizes make the eye work out a hierarchy that doesn't exist. DESIGN.md says the form needs exactly two roles: 16px for every label, input, and helper line; 20px for the two section headings.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Small labels fail readability on phones; random emphasis makes some fields look more important than others for no reason; the implementer keeps guessing per field.\nRecommendation: 3A because DESIGN.md already defines the two roles and the plan's own gap note says \"two sizes would suffice\"; fewer sizes is stronger hierarchy (subtraction default).\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n3A) DESIGN.md two roles: 16px body/labels/inputs/helper/errors, 20px section headings (recommended)\n  ✅ Every label clears the 16px readability floor, including inside form controls on iOS (no zoom-on-focus)\n  ✅ Two sizes give the eye one clear step: heading vs. everything else; matches the rest of the app\n  ❌ Any helper text currently at 14px grows; the 640px column has room, but long helper lines wrap one more line\n3B) Three roles: 20px headings, 16px labels/inputs, 14px helper and error text\n  ✅ Keeps helper text visually quieter than labels\n  ✅ Common convention in many form libraries\n  ❌ 14px error text is body text below the 16px floor and fights the contrast fix coming in Pass 6; diverges from DESIGN.md\n3C) Leave 14/16/18 as-is\n  ✅ No CSS change\n  ❌ Keeps the sub-16px labels and the arbitrary emphasis; the gap stays open\nNet: Two DESIGN.md roles vs. keeping a smaller helper tier that undercuts readability.": "3A Two roles 16/20 (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:03:01.819Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_018v9UECwbSEQk3HesZPGyxE",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D7 — Issue 4: Vertical spacing is 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule. Which spacing scale goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 5 (Design System Alignment).\nELI10: The gaps between blocks are different sizes for no reason, so the eye can't tell where one group ends and the next begins. DESIGN.md gives a simple ladder on an 8px grid: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px between a label and its input. Bigger gap = bigger boundary. Same ladder the rest of the app uses.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Grouping becomes ambiguous (is Email part of Notifications?), the page looks assembled rather than designed, and every new field re-litigates its margin.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the DESIGN.md scale, it encodes the Gestalt proximity rule (related = closer), and it needs no new tokens.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n4A) DESIGN.md 8px base: sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px; header block → actions → status use the same ladder (recommended)\n  ✅ Three values on one grid make grouping legible at a glance on 320px and 640px alike\n  ✅ Matches the shell's existing tokens, so spacing is consistent with every other settings-style page\n  ❌ Some blocks currently at 16px grow to 24px or 32px, so the page gets a little taller on small screens\n4B) Two values only: 32px between sections, 16px everywhere else\n  ✅ Even simpler ladder, slightly denser form\n  ✅ Still on the 8px grid\n  ❌ Loses the label-to-input 8px tie, so labels float equidistant from the field above and their own input; diverges from DESIGN.md\n4C) Leave 16/24/32 ad hoc\n  ✅ No CSS change\n  ❌ Gap stays open; grouping stays ambiguous\nNet: DESIGN.md's three-step ladder vs. a denser two-step one that weakens label-to-input proximity.",
            "header": "Issue 4",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "4A DESIGN.md 32/24/8 ladder (recommended)",
                "description": "Sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px, all on the 8px base."
              },
              {
                "label": "4B Two values 32/16",
                "description": "32px between sections, 16px for everything else. Diverges from DESIGN.md."
              },
              {
                "label": "4C Leave as-is",
                "description": "Keep the ad hoc 16/24/32; gap stays open."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D7 — Issue 4: Vertical spacing is 16px, 24px and 32px between sections with no rule. Which spacing scale goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 5 (Design System Alignment).\nELI10: The gaps between blocks are different sizes for no reason, so the eye can't tell where one group ends and the next begins. DESIGN.md gives a simple ladder on an 8px grid: 32px between sections, 24px between field groups, 8px between a label and its input. Bigger gap = bigger boundary. Same ladder the rest of the app uses.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Grouping becomes ambiguous (is Email part of Notifications?), the page looks assembled rather than designed, and every new field re-litigates its margin.\nRecommendation: 4A because it is the DESIGN.md scale, it encodes the Gestalt proximity rule (related = closer), and it needs no new tokens.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=2/10\nPros / cons:\n4A) DESIGN.md 8px base: sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px; header block → actions → status use the same ladder (recommended)\n  ✅ Three values on one grid make grouping legible at a glance on 320px and 640px alike\n  ✅ Matches the shell's existing tokens, so spacing is consistent with every other settings-style page\n  ❌ Some blocks currently at 16px grow to 24px or 32px, so the page gets a little taller on small screens\n4B) Two values only: 32px between sections, 16px everywhere else\n  ✅ Even simpler ladder, slightly denser form\n  ✅ Still on the 8px grid\n  ❌ Loses the label-to-input 8px tie, so labels float equidistant from the field above and their own input; diverges from DESIGN.md\n4C) Leave 16/24/32 ad hoc\n  ✅ No CSS change\n  ❌ Gap stays open; grouping stays ambiguous\nNet: DESIGN.md's three-step ladder vs. a denser two-step one that weakens label-to-input proximity.": "4A DESIGN.md 32/24/8 ladder (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:03:47.017Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_017425UdRUy5ZfBJrVnvVMEz",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D8 — Issue 5: Error text is red on light pink at ~3:1 contrast, below WCAG AA. Which error treatment goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility).\nELI10: When a save fails, the message telling you why is the hardest text on the page to read: pale red on pink at about 3:1, when the accessibility bar for normal text is 4.5:1. Low-vision users and anyone on a phone in sunlight lose the message. DESIGN.md already picks a dark red on a barely-tinted surface that measures 7.6:1, plus an icon so the state never depends on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The one message that matters most is unreadable for a chunk of users, and the page fails an AA audit.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the DESIGN.md token pair, it measures 7.6:1 (clears AA and AAA), and the icon + explicit text satisfies \"never communicate status through color alone.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n5A) DESIGN.md: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, leading error icon, explicit text; same tokens for inline field errors, ErrorSummary and the status/error slot (recommended)\n  ✅ 7.6:1 measured contrast; readable in low vision, grayscale and bright light\n  ✅ One token pair across field errors, ErrorSummary and the network error row, so all three read as the same state\n  ❌ The pink surface becomes nearly white (#fef2f2), so the error relies on text, icon and border rather than a strong tint\n5B) Keep the current pink surface, darken text to #991b1b only\n  ✅ Minimal change; text contrast likely clears 4.5:1 on most light pinks\n  ✅ Keeps the stronger tinted surface some users find easier to spot\n  ❌ \"Light pink\" is unmeasured, so contrast is unverified; diverges from the DESIGN.md surface token and adds no icon\n5C) Leave red-on-pink as-is\n  ✅ No change\n  ❌ Fails WCAG AA on the most important text on the page; gap stays open\nNet: The measured DESIGN.md pair with icon vs. a partial fix on an unmeasured surface.",
            "header": "Issue 5",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "5A DESIGN.md #991b1b on #fef2f2 + icon (recommended)",
                "description": "Error text #991b1b, surface #fef2f2, leading icon, explicit text; 7.6:1 measured."
              },
              {
                "label": "5B Darken text only",
                "description": "Keep current pink surface, change text to #991b1b. Unmeasured; no icon."
              },
              {
                "label": "5C Leave as-is",
                "description": "Keep ~3:1 red on pink; gap stays open."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D8 — Issue 5: Error text is red on light pink at ~3:1 contrast, below WCAG AA. Which error treatment goes in the plan?\nProject/branch/task: `PLAN.md` Settings Page UI redesign on `main`, Pass 6 (Responsive & Accessibility).\nELI10: When a save fails, the message telling you why is the hardest text on the page to read: pale red on pink at about 3:1, when the accessibility bar for normal text is 4.5:1. Low-vision users and anyone on a phone in sunlight lose the message. DESIGN.md already picks a dark red on a barely-tinted surface that measures 7.6:1, plus an icon so the state never depends on color alone.\nStakes if we pick wrong: The one message that matters most is unreadable for a chunk of users, and the page fails an AA audit.\nRecommendation: 5A because it is the DESIGN.md token pair, it measures 7.6:1 (clears AA and AAA), and the icon + explicit text satisfies \"never communicate status through color alone.\"\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=1/10\nPros / cons:\n5A) DESIGN.md: error.text #991b1b on error.surface #fef2f2, leading error icon, explicit text; same tokens for inline field errors, ErrorSummary and the status/error slot (recommended)\n  ✅ 7.6:1 measured contrast; readable in low vision, grayscale and bright light\n  ✅ One token pair across field errors, ErrorSummary and the network error row, so all three read as the same state\n  ❌ The pink surface becomes nearly white (#fef2f2), so the error relies on text, icon and border rather than a strong tint\n5B) Keep the current pink surface, darken text to #991b1b only\n  ✅ Minimal change; text contrast likely clears 4.5:1 on most light pinks\n  ✅ Keeps the stronger tinted surface some users find easier to spot\n  ❌ \"Light pink\" is unmeasured, so contrast is unverified; diverges from the DESIGN.md surface token and adds no icon\n5C) Leave red-on-pink as-is\n  ✅ No change\n  ❌ Fails WCAG AA on the most important text on the page; gap stays open\nNet: The measured DESIGN.md pair with icon vs. a partial fix on an unmeasured surface.": "5A DESIGN.md #991b1b on #fef2f2 + icon (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T16:04:44.760Z"
      }
    ],
    "assistantMessages": [
      {
        "sessionId": "2c6b87cc-7178-4ff5-80b5-c237635d5d12",
        "text": "## Review complete\n\n```\n+====================================================================+\n|                    REVIEW READINESS DASHBOARD                       |\n+====================================================================+\n| Review          | Runs | Last Run            | Status       | Required |\n|-----------------|------|---------------------|--------------|----------|\n| Eng Review      |  0   | —                   | —            | YES      |\n| CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —            | no       |\n| Design Review   |  1   | 2026-09-15 16:07    | CLEAR (FULL) | no       |\n| Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —            | no       |\n| Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | skipped      | no       |\n+--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n| VERDICT: NOT CLEARED — Eng Review missing (required gate)           |\n+====================================================================+\n```\nDesign-outside-voices: codex, design phase, `outside_status: skipped` (your request). No staleness: review commit `88a94e0` = HEAD.\n\n**What happened**\n- Score 6/10 → 9/10 (lowest pass). Five findings, five individual decisions, all took the DESIGN.md token: 1A primary/ghost buttons, 2A \"Saving…\" spinner-in-button with min-width and reduced-motion fallback, 3A two type roles 16/20, 4A spacing 32/24/8, 5A `#991b1b` on `#fef2f2` + icon (7.6:1).\n- Added to the plan: information hierarchy, interaction state table, journey storyboard, contrast inventory, NOT-in-scope, reuse list, 6 tasks (T1-T3 P1, T4-T6 P2).\n- Held back from 10: Pass 4 at 9 because `system-ui` is a default-stack tell. You froze it, so it's recorded, not reopened.\n\n**Artifacts**\n- Plan: `/tmp/gstack-owned-display-5rq8vgtz/gstack-paid-shard-GyYm2x/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-WF8veK/gstack-test-plan-design.md` (report is the last section, read-back verified)\n- Tasks JSONL for `/autoplan`: `.../projects/gstack-plan-count-Ep0KEE/tasks-design-review-20260915-160711.jsonl` (6 tasks)\n- Review log written; learning logged (fixture repo has no source, so tasks name components not paths).\n\n**Skipped, per your instructions:** mockups, outside voices, and the next-step menu (you said you'll run subsequent reviews manually, so I'm not chaining `/plan-eng-review`; it remains the required ship gate).\n\n**STATUS: DONE.** No unresolved decisions. Staying in plan mode; nothing outside the plan file was edited.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T16:07:48.705Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "originalPlanPath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-5rq8vgtz/gstack-paid-shard-GyYm2x/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-WF8veK/gstack-test-plan-design.md",
  "report": "# Plan: Settings Page UI redesign (design-reviewed)\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` at commit `88a94e0`. Design system: `DESIGN.md`.\nReview: `/plan-design-review`, 2026-09-15, text-only, native voice only.\n\n## Context\n\nThe account-settings form already ships. Its shell, components, states,\nfocus rules and responsive behavior are accepted and documented in DESIGN.md.\nThis plan closes five visual inconsistencies between the current form and\nthat design system without changing structure or components. Users see the\nsame page; what changes is that the primary action is legible, the rhythm is\nconsistent, error text is readable, labels use one size, and Save gives\nfeedback while it runs.\n\n## Existing product and accepted behavior (preserved verbatim)\n\nThis updates an existing account-settings form using the checked-in DESIGN.md.\nThe shell and components already exist. Profile and Notifications are the only\nsections, with visible headings and associated field labels. The page header\ncontains the title, a short description, and Save/Reset/Cancel/Export actions.\nThe existing description is “Manage your display name, email address, and notification preferences.”\nPreserve that description verbatim.\nPreserve the approved single-column structure and component behavior.\nThe page title “Account settings” is h1. Profile and Notifications are h2\nheadings that label their fieldsets via aria-labelledby; no heading level is skipped.\nThe existing DOM and visual order are:\n```text\nPersistent app navigation\nmain: Account settings (h1) + description\n  Save | Reset | Cancel | Export\n  InlineStatus\n  Profile (h2): Display name, Email\n  Notifications (h2): Weekly digest, Product tips\n```\n\nJourney: a user arrives from account navigation wanting to adjust preferences,\nedits the labeled fields, saves, and reads the inline Saved timestamp before\nleaving. The feedback preserves confidence that their preferences were stored.\nThe persistent InlineStatus has role=status, aria-live=polite, aria-atomic=true.\nAfter success it reads “Saved at HH:mm” in the user’s local 24-hour time.\nEditing away from a saved value changes its text to “Unsaved changes”, so\ndirty state never relies on color or the Save button being enabled. Reverting\nall edits or confirming Reset restores the last successful save timestamp.\nBefore any successful save, unchanged values show blank status text; editing\nshows “Unsaved changes”, and reverting or confirming Reset restores blank text.\nFailed saves retain “Unsaved changes” alongside the error message.\nInitial loading uses the existing form skeleton. A new account sees useful\ndefault preferences as specified in DESIGN.md rather than an empty page. Read failures show Retry.\nSave is atomic: all fields persist together or none do, so partial success is\nnot exposed. Field validation, network failure, and successful-save feedback\nuse the exact existing DESIGN.md patterns. Preserve unsaved values after errors.\nDisable repeat Save submissions while pending. Save and Export are mutually\nexclusive: disable both while either is pending. After Save finishes, Export\ndownloads the latest successfully saved preferences. Reset restores saved values only\nafter confirmation; Cancel confirms discarding dirty edits before returning to\nthe previous page; Export downloads the current saved preferences as JSON.\nReset and Cancel are disabled while Save or Export is pending; all four header\nactions return to their idle/dirty-state behavior when it settles. While preparing Export, use the existing inline\nspinner beside “Exporting…” inside its disabled button, aria-busy=true, with reduced-motion support.\nAn Export failure uses the existing inline error/retry area and preserves\nunsaved fields. Retry repeats Export; success clears only that Export error.\nRetry controls are siblings beside the status text, outside its live region.\nVisible text stays “Retry”; its aria-label is “Retry save” or “Retry export” for that operation.\nThe read-failure control follows the same pattern with aria-label “Retry loading”.\nThe existing router protects dirty edits on every in-app exit, including\npersistent app navigation, using the same Cancel confirmation dialog.\nRegister the browser-native beforeunload warning only while the form is dirty;\nremove it when clean. Confirmed in-app navigation uses the existing destination\nheading focus behavior; Keep editing returns focus to the attempted exit.\nDuring Save or Export, both request buttons use aria-disabled=true plus an\nexplicit click/keyboard activation guard, rather than the HTML disabled attribute.\nThey remain focusable and keep the existing disabled appearance. Reset and\nCancel use HTML disabled during the request. Do not move focus while pending\nor after success. On a network error, focus the operation-specific Retry only\nif focus is still on the request trigger; never steal focus the user moved.\nThe existing InlineStatus text stays unchanged while Save is pending:\nUnsaved changes for a dirty form, otherwise its saved timestamp or initial\nblank text. Pending feedback belongs to the request button; do not repeat\nSaving… in the status live region. Success and failure use the outcomes above.\nWhen clean and idle, Reset is disabled because it has nothing to discard,\nand Cancel navigates back immediately without a confirmation. When dirty\nand idle, Reset and Cancel use their existing discard confirmations. Their\n44px geometry is unchanged; the disabled style is separate from pending feedback.\nThe existing ErrorSummary mounts in the status/error area below the action\ngroup and above Profile. It links each invalid field; focus goes to the first\ninvalid field and the summary is not a second live region. Preserve that slot.\nThe existing error/Retry row is inline above 640px with an 8px gap. At 640px\nand below, Retry wraps below the text as a full-width 44px ghost button,\noutside the live region; long errors fit 320px without horizontal scroll.\nThe existing Export action names downloads account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json\nusing the local date, with no account identifiers. The browser adds its usual\nduplicate-name suffix for repeated exports. Preserve this download behavior.\n\nResponsive behavior: above 640px keep the header action group in one row; at\n640px and below, place full-width Save first and the three secondary actions\nin one equal-column row below it, preserving DOM/tab order. The form fits 320px\nwithout horizontal scroll, including the secondary actions and their 44px targets.\nAll controls have visible focus rings and 44px targets. Use semantic fieldsets,\nlabels, a main landmark and heading order; errors link through aria-describedby.\nFocus-visible on every control and dialog action is the existing 2px solid\n#1d4ed8 outline, offset 2px on white, with measured contrast above 3:1.\nDialogs trap focus; Escape cancels. Closing while staying on the form restores\nfocus to the Reset or Cancel trigger. Confirmed navigation uses the existing\ndestination-main-heading focus behavior. Export remains a\nclearly labeled button. Respect reduced motion. No additional visual exploration\nor component replacement is part of this established form update.\nRetain the existing system-ui, sans-serif font family, including on form controls.\n\n## Open design gaps (pending individual review decisions)\n\nEach item below is an unresolved finding from the source plan. A DESIGN.md\ntoken that matches a gap is a proposed fix, not an approved one. Status moves\nto \"approved\" only after its own review decision.\n\n| # | Gap (from PLAN.md) | Current state | Proposed fix (pending) | Status |\n|---|--------------------|---------------|------------------------|--------|\n| 1 | Visual hierarchy: Save is styled identically to Reset/Cancel/Export | No primary action legible | DESIGN.md: Save filled `#1d4ed8` + white text; Reset/Cancel/Export neutral ghost | **approved (1A, D4)** — see \"Approved design decisions\" |\n| 2 | Motion: Save takes 2-5s with no pending indicator | Frozen page | DESIGN.md: inline spinner beside “Saving…” inside the disabled Save button, aria-busy=true, reduced motion | **approved (2A, D5)** — see \"Approved design decisions\" |\n| 3 | Typography: labels use 14px, 16px, 18px | Three label sizes, 14px below body minimum | DESIGN.md: 16px body/labels/helper, 20px section headings | **approved (3A, D6)** — see \"Approved design decisions\" |\n| 4 | Spacing: 16px / 24px / 32px between sections, no rhythm | Inconsistent vertical rhythm | DESIGN.md: 8px base; sections 32px, field groups 24px, label-to-input 8px | **approved (4A, D7)** — see \"Approved design decisions\" |\n| 5 | Color: error red on light pink, ~3:1 contrast | Fails WCAG AA for body text | DESIGN.md: `error.text #991b1b` on `error.surface #fef2f2` with icon and explicit text | **approved (5A, D8)** — see \"Approved design decisions\" |\n\n## Approved design decisions\n\n### Decision 1 (1A): Primary action hierarchy\nSave is the only filled button: background `#1d4ed8`, white text (existing\nButton primary variant). Reset, Cancel and Export use the existing neutral\nghost variant. Applies in both layouts: the single desktop row above 640px and\nthe 320px stack (full-width filled Save, then three equal-column ghost\nsecondaries). Disabled and pending appearances for Save keep the filled\nvariant's existing disabled styling; ghost secondaries keep the ghost disabled\nstyling. 44px targets and DOM/tab order are unchanged.\n\nInformation hierarchy the user should read, in order:\n```text\n1. \"Account settings\" (h1) + description   — where am I\n2. Save (filled #1d4ed8)                    — the one action that commits\n3. InlineStatus text                        — blank / \"Unsaved changes\" / \"Saved at HH:mm\"\n4. Profile (h2) → Display name, Email       — the fields\n5. Notifications (h2) → Weekly digest, Product tips\n   Reset | Cancel | Export sit beside Save as quiet ghost buttons and never\n   compete with it for the first glance.\n```\n\n### Decision 2 (2A): Save pending state\nWhile Save is in flight, the Save button shows the existing inline spinner\nbeside the label “Saving…”, matching the Export “Exporting…” pattern exactly:\n- Button gets `aria-disabled=\"true\"` + the existing click/keyboard activation\n  guard (not the HTML `disabled` attribute), `aria-busy=\"true\"`, stays\n  focusable, keeps the filled variant's existing disabled appearance.\n- Reserve width: the Save button has a `min-width` equal to its rendered\n  “Saving…” + spinner width so the header row does not shift when the label\n  changes. At 640px and below it is already full-width, so no reservation is\n  needed there.\n- `prefers-reduced-motion: reduce`: the spinner does not animate (static\n  glyph); the “Saving…” text is the cue.\n- The InlineStatus live region does not change while pending (accepted\n  behavior above). The button's text change is the only pending feedback.\n- On settle: success → label returns to “Save”, spinner removed, aria-busy\n  removed, InlineStatus reads “Saved at HH:mm”. Failure → same button reset,\n  InlineStatus keeps “Unsaved changes”, inline error + “Retry” (aria-label\n  “Retry save”) appear in the status/error area. Focus does not move except\n  the existing “focus Retry only if focus is still on the trigger” rule.\n\n### Decision 3 (3A): Typography roles\nExactly two type roles on this page, per DESIGN.md:\n- **16px** — body, field labels, input text, switch labels, helper text,\n  inline field errors, ErrorSummary items, InlineStatus text, button labels.\n  No text on the page renders below 16px.\n- **20px** — the Profile and Notifications h2 headings.\n- The h1 keeps the existing page-title size from the shell (unchanged).\n- Font family stays `system-ui, sans-serif`, inherited by form controls.\nRemove the 14px and 18px label sizes; emphasis between fields comes from\ngrouping and spacing (Decision 4), not from size.\n\n### Decision 4 (4A): Spacing scale\nAll vertical spacing on the page uses DESIGN.md's 8px base with three steps:\n- **32px** between sections: description → action group, status/error slot →\n  Profile fieldset, Profile → Notifications. More space above a section\n  heading than below it (32px above the h2, 8px between the h2 and its first\n  field group).\n- **24px** between field groups inside a fieldset: Display name → Email,\n  Weekly digest → Product tips.\n- **8px** between a label and its input, between the action group and the\n  InlineStatus/error slot, and (existing) between error text and its Retry\n  button above 640px.\n- Horizontal gap between header buttons is 8px above 640px; at 640px and\n  below, 8px between Save and the secondary row and 8px between the three\n  equal-column secondaries.\nThe 16px value is no longer used for block spacing on this page. The form keeps\nits 640px maximum width.\n\n### Decision 5 (5A): Error color and treatment\nAll error presentation on the page uses the DESIGN.md pair\n`error.text #991b1b` on `error.surface #fef2f2` (measured 7.6:1, clears WCAG\nAA 4.5:1 and AAA 7:1 for body text), at the 16px role from Decision 3:\n- Inline field errors under Display name / Email (linked via\n  `aria-describedby`).\n- ErrorSummary in the status/error slot below the action group.\n- Network error rows for Save, Export and initial read in that same slot,\n  beside their “Retry” sibling button (outside the live region).\nEach error row/summary starts with the existing error icon (decorative,\n`aria-hidden`) followed by explicit text, so the state never depends on color\nalone. The current red-on-light-pink pair is removed. Focus-ring, Retry\ngeometry (44px, full-width ghost at 640px and below) and the 8px inline gap\nabove 640px are unchanged.\n\nContrast inventory after this decision (all measured or DESIGN.md-stated):\n- Body/labels: existing text color on white, meets AA (unchanged).\n- Save primary: white on `#1d4ed8`, 6.7:1.\n- Error text: `#991b1b` on `#fef2f2`, 7.6:1.\n- Focus ring: `#1d4ed8` outline on white, above 3:1 (DESIGN.md measured).\n\n### Interaction state table (what the user sees)\n\n| Feature | Loading | Empty | Error | Success | Partial |\n|---------|---------|-------|-------|---------|---------|\n| Page / form | Existing form skeleton in the fieldset slots; header and actions render | Never blank: server defaults (account name/email, Weekly digest on, Product tips off) | Read failure: inline error + “Retry” (aria-label “Retry loading”) in status/error slot; fields stay in skeleton | Fields populated, InlineStatus blank until first save | n/a (single read) |\n| Save button | Spinner + “Saving…”, aria-busy, aria-disabled, no width shift (Decision 2) | n/a | Label back to “Save”; error text + “Retry save” in slot; edits preserved | Label back to “Save”; InlineStatus “Saved at HH:mm” | Never shown: save is atomic |\n| InlineStatus (role=status, polite, atomic) | Unchanged while pending | Blank before first save when unchanged | Keeps “Unsaved changes” beside the error | “Saved at HH:mm” (local 24h) | n/a |\n| Field validation | n/a | n/a | Inline error under field via aria-describedby; ErrorSummary below actions links each field; focus → first invalid field | Errors clear on valid resubmit | n/a |\n| Export button | Spinner + “Exporting…”, aria-busy, aria-disabled; Save also aria-disabled | n/a | Inline error + “Retry export”; unsaved fields untouched | Download `account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json`; clears only the Export error | n/a |\n| Reset | HTML disabled while Save/Export pending | Disabled when clean (nothing to discard) | n/a | Confirm dialog → restores saved values; InlineStatus restores timestamp or blank | n/a |\n| Cancel | HTML disabled while Save/Export pending | Clean: navigates back immediately | n/a | Dirty: confirm dialog → “Discard and leave” navigates; destination heading focused | n/a |\n| Dialogs (Reset / Cancel / router exit) | n/a | n/a | n/a | Focus trapped; Escape = Keep editing; close returns focus to trigger or attempted exit | n/a |\n\n### Journey storyboard (accepted journey, rendered for QA)\n\n| Step | User does | User feels | Plan specifies |\n|------|-----------|------------|----------------|\n| 1 | Arrives from account navigation | Oriented: \"this is where my preferences live\" | h1 “Account settings” + verbatim description; persistent nav; main landmark; skeleton then defaults, never a blank page |\n| 2 | Scans the header | Certain which button commits | Decision 1: Save is the only filled button; three ghost secondaries |\n| 3 | Edits Display name / toggles Weekly digest | In control, aware of being mid-change | InlineStatus → “Unsaved changes” (text, not color); Reset enables; beforeunload registered |\n| 4 | Clicks Save | \"It heard me\" within 100ms | Decision 2: spinner + “Saving…” in the button, aria-busy, no layout shift, no focus move |\n| 5a | Save succeeds | Relief, confidence to leave | InlineStatus “Saved at HH:mm”; Save label returns; Export now reflects saved values |\n| 5b | Save fails (network) | Frustrated but not stranded | Edits preserved; “Unsaved changes” stays; readable error + “Retry save”; focus to Retry only if still on Save |\n| 5c | Save fails (validation) | Knows exactly what to fix | ErrorSummary links fields; focus → first invalid field; field errors via aria-describedby |\n| 6 | Changes mind / wants to leave dirty | Protected from an accidental loss | Reset / Cancel / any in-app exit → same confirmation dialog, “Keep editing” default, Escape cancels, focus returns to trigger |\n| 7 | Exports | Trusts the file is theirs and current | `account-settings-YYYY-MM-DD.json`, no identifiers, latest saved values; “Exporting…” pending |\n| 8 | Leaves | Sure the change stuck | Timestamp visible until exit; no beforeunload nag when clean |\n\nTime horizons: 5 seconds (visceral) = h1 + one filled Save; 5 minutes\n(behavioral) = the dirty → pending → saved text loop; 5 years (reflective) =\natomic saves, exit protection and identifier-free exports keep trust intact.\n\n## Pass 4 record: AI slop / hard rules (OPERATE surface)\n\nClassifier: OPERATE (App UI). Hard rejections: none. Litmus: 1 YES (shell nav\n+ h1), 2 YES after Decision 1 (single filled Save), 3 YES (h1/Profile/\nNotifications), 4 YES, 5 N/A (no cards), 6 YES (only motion is the informative\npending spinner, reduced-motion respected), 7 YES (no decorative shadows).\nUniversal-rule violation found and fixed: sub-16px labels / three label sizes\n(Decision 3). Noted, not reopened: `system-ui` as the display voice (see NOT in\nscope).\n\n## NOT in scope\n\nConsidered during review and explicitly not changed:\n- **Display typeface.** `system-ui, sans-serif` is a known \"default stack\"\n  tell, but the source plan freezes it twice and DESIGN.md names it as the app\n  font. OPERATE surfaces favor native expectations; no readability gap exists.\n- **Layout or component changes.** Single column, 640px max width, existing\n  Button/Field/InlineStatus/ErrorSummary/ConfirmationDialog only; the plan\n  rules out component replacement.\n- **Description copy.** Preserved verbatim per plan.\n- **Visual mockups and outside voices.** Skipped at the user's request for this\n  run; the designer binary is available if a later run wants them.\n- **Dark mode / theming.** Not mentioned in plan or DESIGN.md; all tokens are\n  stated on white. Not introduced.\n\n## What already exists (reuse, do not rebuild)\n\n- DESIGN.md tokens: primary `#1d4ed8` + white, ghost secondary, 8px spacing\n  base (32/24/8), type roles 16/20, `error.text #991b1b` / `error.surface\n  #fef2f2`, focus ring 2px solid `#1d4ed8` offset 2px.\n- Components: Button (primary + ghost variants, disabled styling), Field\n  (label, input, helper, inline error with aria-describedby), InlineStatus\n  (role=status, polite, atomic), ErrorSummary (linked list, focus-first-\n  invalid), ConfirmationDialog (focus trap, Escape, default action, focus\n  return), form skeleton, inline spinner with reduced-motion support.\n- Behaviors: atomic save, Save/Export mutual exclusion, aria-disabled +\n  activation guard, router dirty-exit protection, beforeunload registration,\n  Export download naming, 640px/320px action-group layout, Retry sibling\n  pattern with operation-specific aria-labels.\n\n## TODOS.md updates\n\nNone proposed. All five findings were approved for this change; the only\nout-of-scope debt candidate (display typeface) is covered by the plan's\nexplicit \"no additional visual exploration\" deferral.\n\n## Implementation Tasks\nSynthesized from this review's findings. Each task derives from a specific\nfinding above. Run with Claude Code or Codex; checkbox as you ship.\n(Source files are not in this fixture repo; paths name the component to touch.)\n\n- [ ] **T1 (P1, human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)** — Header action group — Apply primary/ghost variants: Save filled `#1d4ed8`/white, Reset/Cancel/Export ghost, in both layouts\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 1 — Issue 1 / Decision 1 (1A)\n  - Files: account-settings page action group; Button variant props (no new variant)\n  - Verify: screenshot at 1024px and 320px shows exactly one filled button; disabled/pending Save keeps filled-disabled style; tab order unchanged\n- [ ] **T2 (P1, human: ~3h / CC: ~15min)** — Save button pending state — Spinner + “Saving…”, `aria-busy`, `aria-disabled` + activation guard, min-width reservation, reduced-motion static glyph\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 2 — Issue 2 / Decision 2 (2A)\n  - Files: account-settings save handler / Save button; reuse Export's pending implementation\n  - Verify: throttle network to 3s save; button label changes within one frame, header row width does not shift, InlineStatus text unchanged while pending, `prefers-reduced-motion: reduce` shows no animation, screen reader announces busy; success → “Saved at HH:mm”, failure → “Unsaved changes” + “Retry save”\n- [ ] **T3 (P1, human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)** — Error presentation — Switch all error text/surfaces to `#991b1b` on `#fef2f2` with leading icon: Field inline errors, ErrorSummary, Save/Export/read error rows\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 6 — Issue 5 / Decision 5 (5A)\n  - Files: Field error style, ErrorSummary style, status/error slot style; error icon asset (confirm the existing components render it; add per DESIGN.md if not)\n  - Verify: measured contrast ≥ 7:1 on all three surfaces; icon is `aria-hidden`; axe/Lighthouse contrast audit passes; grayscale screenshot still reads as an error\n- [ ] **T4 (P2, human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)** — Typography — Collapse label sizes to 16px (labels, inputs, helper, errors, status, buttons) and 20px (h2 headings); remove 14px and 18px\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 4 — Issue 3 / Decision 3 (3A)\n  - Files: account-settings form styles; Field label/helper styles\n  - Verify: computed `font-size` of every text node on the page is 16px or 20px (h1 excepted); iOS Safari does not zoom on input focus\n- [ ] **T5 (P2, human: ~1h / CC: ~5min)** — Spacing — Apply 32px section / 24px field-group / 8px label-to-input ladder; remove ad hoc 16px block gaps\n  - Surfaced by: Pass 5 — Issue 4 / Decision 4 (4A)\n  - Files: account-settings form styles (fieldset, field group, action group, status slot margins)\n  - Verify: computed vertical gaps match 32/24/8 at 1024px and 320px; h2 has 32px above and 8px below; no horizontal scroll at 320px\n- [ ] **T6 (P2, human: ~2h / CC: ~10min)** — End-to-end design QA — Run `/design-review` against the built page covering the state table and storyboard above\n  - Surfaced by: Passes 2, 3, 6 — interaction state table, journey storyboard, contrast inventory\n  - Files: n/a (verification)\n  - Verify: every row of the interaction state table observed at 640px and 320px; keyboard-only walk through Save/Reset/Cancel/Export and both dialogs; reduced-motion run\n\n_No new tasks from Pass 7 (no unresolved decisions)._\n\n## Completion Summary\n\n```\n  +====================================================================+\n  |         DESIGN PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY                    |\n  +====================================================================+\n  | System Audit         | DESIGN.md present; 1 page, 4 actions, 2     |\n  |                      | fieldsets, 2 dialogs, 640/320 breakpoints   |\n  | Step 0               | 6/10 initial; all 7 dimensions reviewed     |\n  | Pass 1  (Info Arch)  |  7/10 → 10/10 after fixes                   |\n  | Pass 2  (States)     |  7/10 → 10/10 after fixes                   |\n  | Pass 3  (Journey)    |  8/10 → 10/10 after fixes (carried D5)      |\n  | Pass 4  (AI Slop)    |  7/10 →  9/10 after fixes (system-ui frozen)|\n  | Pass 5  (Design Sys) |  6/10 → 10/10 after fixes                   |\n  | Pass 6  (Responsive) |  7/10 → 10/10 after fixes                   |\n  | Pass 7  (Decisions)  |  5 resolved, 0 deferred                     |\n  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n  | NOT in scope         | written (5 items)                           |\n  | What already exists  | written                                     |\n  | TODOS.md updates     | 0 items proposed                            |\n  | Approved Mockups     | 0 generated, 0 approved (text-only run)     |\n  | Decisions made       | 5 added to plan                             |\n  | Decisions deferred   | 0                                           |\n  | Overall design score | 6/10 → 9/10                                 |\n  +====================================================================+\n```\n\nOverall = lowest rated pass. Before: Pass 5 at 6. After: Pass 4 at 9, held\nthere only by the `system-ui` display font, which the plan freezes by design.\nPlan is design-complete (all passes 8+). Run `/design-review` after\nimplementation for visual QA (T6).\n\n## Unresolved Decisions\n\nNone. All five findings received individual decisions (D4-D8); no additional\nfindings were surfaced in Pass 7.\n\n## GSTACK REVIEW REPORT\n\n| Review | Trigger | Why | Runs | Status | Findings |\n|--------|---------|-----|------|--------|----------|\n| CEO Review | `/plan-ceo-review` | Scope & strategy | 0 | — | — |\n| Outside Review | codex via `/plan-design-review` (design phase) | Independent 2nd opinion | 0 | skipped (user) | — |\n| Eng Review | `/plan-eng-review` | Architecture & tests (required) | 0 | — | — |\n| Design Review | `/plan-design-review` | UI/UX gaps | 1 | clean | score: 6/10 → 9/10, 5 decisions |\n| DX Review | `/plan-devex-review` | Developer experience gaps | 0 | — | — |\n\n- **OUTSIDE COVERAGE:** provider codex, phase design, skipped at the user's request (native voice only); no outside findings. Host: claude.\n- **VERDICT:** DESIGN CLEARED — design-complete, 5 decisions applied, 0 unresolved; eng review required.\n\nNO UNRESOLVED DECISIONS\n",
  "reportSha256": "ebfd47e8fd69573725339bf7a1858ae6dc97a4de5b83fc884c99da67adbc4218",
  "reportMtimeMs": 1789488405861.194,
  "screen": "  |-----------------|------|---------------------|--------------|----------|\n  | Eng Review      |  0   | —                   | —            | YES      |\n  | CEO Review      |  0   | —                   | —            | no       |\n  | Design Review   |  1   | 2026-09-15 16:07    | CLEAR (FULL) | no       |\n  | Adversarial     |  0   | —                   | —            | no       |\n  | Outside Voice   |  0   | —                   | skipped      | no       |\n  +--------------------------------------------------------------------+\n  | VERDICT: NOT CLEARED — Eng Review missing (required gate)           |\n  +====================================================================+\n  Design-outside-voices: codex, design phase, outside_status: skipped (your request). No staleness: review commit\n  88a94e0 = HEAD.\n\n  What happened\n  - Score 6/10 → 9/10 (lowest pass). Five findings, five individual decisions, all took the DESIGN.md token: 1A\n    primary/ghost buttons, 2A \"Saving…\" spinner-in-button with min-width and reduced-motion fallback, 3A two type roles\n    16/20, 4A spacing 32/24/8, 5A #991b1b on #fef2f2 + icon (7.6:1).\n  - Added to the plan: information hierarchy, interaction state table, journey storyboard, contrast inventory,\n    NOT-in-scope, reuse list, 6 tasks (T1-T3 P1, T4-T6 P2).\n  - Held back from 10: Pass 4 at 9 because system-ui is a default-stack tell. You froze it, so it's recorded, not\n    reopened.\n\n  Artifacts\n  - Plan: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-5rq8vgtz/gstack-paid-shard-GyYm2x/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-design-WF8veK/gstack-test-plan\n    -design.md (report is the last section, read-back verified)\n  - Tasks JSONL for /autoplan: .../projects/gstack-plan-count-Ep0KEE/tasks-design-review-20260915-160711.jsonl (6 tasks)\n  - Review log written; learning logged (fixture repo has no source, so tasks name components not paths).\n\n  Skipped, per your instructions: mockups, outside voices, and the next-step menu (you said you'll run subsequent\n  reviews manually, so I'm not chaining /plan-eng-review; it remains the required ship gate).\n\n  STATUS: DONE. No unresolved decisions. Staying in plan mode; nothing outside the plan file was edited.\n\n✻ Cooked for 10m 47s · done 4:07 PM\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n❯  \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n  ⏸ plan mode on (shift+tab to cycle) · ← for agents                             ✔ Update installed · Restart to apply\n\n"
}