{
  "source": "a082d7d35e88ebc947f440662d3c98f1acfa15b7",
  "evidence": ".context/sep12-autoplan-followup-validation/eng-batching-shape-public.json",
  "toolUseJson": "{\"type\":\"tool_use\",\"id\":\"toolu_01Pi5YPbAGWX2EGnF8T86e6R\",\"name\":\"AskUserQuestion\",\"input\":{\"questions\":[{\"question\":\"D1 — Run /office-hours first, or go straight to the standard eng review?\\nProject/branch/task: plan-eng-review fixture on `main`, reviewing the retry-framework plan in review-input.md.\\nELI10: No design doc exists for this branch. /office-hours produces a structured problem statement, a premise challenge, and explored alternatives. That gives this review sharper input: right now the plan is four short paragraphs with no stated problem, constraints, or rejected options. The design doc is per-feature, not per-product. About 10 minutes.\\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without a problem statement, I review the plan's mechanics but can't check whether the whole approach solves the right problem. With it, I'd be spending 10 minutes on a plan that already looks reviewable as-is.\\nRecommendation: B because the plan is small, the four issues are already visible on its face, and the review itself will surface the premise question (custom scheduler vs. library retry hooks) directly.\\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\\nPros / cons:\\nA) Run /office-hours now\\n  ✅ Forces a written problem statement and explicit alternatives before any architecture verdict\\n  ✅ Captures why the team wants 'full control over the curve', which decides the biggest finding\\n  ❌ Adds roughly 10 minutes before any review output on a plan that is already reviewable\\nB) Skip — proceed with standard review (recommended)\\n  ✅ Immediate review; the plan is short enough that every issue is visible without extra input\\n  ✅ Step 0 scope challenge covers the premise question anyway (built-in vs. custom)\\n  ❌ Recommendations rest on inferred goals rather than the team's written constraints\\nNet: Trading 10 minutes of upfront framing against getting straight to concrete findings on a small plan.\"},{\"header\":\"Design doc\",\"multiSelect\":false,\"options\":[{\"label\":\"Skip — standard review (recommended)\",\"description\":\"Proceed directly to Step 0 scope challenge and the four review sections.\"},{\"label\":\"Run /office-hours now\",\"description\":\"Build a design doc first (problem statement, premise challenge, alternatives), then resume the review.\"}],\"question\":\"D1 — Run /office-hours first, or go straight to the standard eng review?\"}]},\"caller\":{\"type\":\"direct\"}}",
  "toolResultJson": "{\"type\":\"tool_result\",\"content\":\"<tool_use_error>InputValidationError: AskUserQuestion failed due to the following issues:\\nThe parameter `questions[0].header` type is expected as `string` but provided as `unknown`\\nThe parameter `questions[0].options` type is expected as `array` but provided as `unknown`</tool_use_error>\",\"is_error\":true,\"tool_use_id\":\"toolu_01Pi5YPbAGWX2EGnF8T86e6R\"}",
  "toolUseResultJson": "\"InputValidationError: [\\n  {\\n    \\\"expected\\\": \\\"string\\\",\\n    \\\"code\\\": \\\"invalid_type\\\",\\n    \\\"path\\\": [\\n      \\\"questions\\\",\\n      0,\\n      \\\"header\\\"\\n    ],\\n    \\\"message\\\": \\\"Invalid input\\\"\\n  },\\n  {\\n    \\\"expected\\\": \\\"array\\\",\\n    \\\"code\\\": \\\"invalid_type\\\",\\n    \\\"path\\\": [\\n      \\\"questions\\\",\\n      0,\\n      \\\"options\\\"\\n    ],\\n    \\\"message\\\": \\\"Invalid input\\\"\\n  }\\n]\"",
  "invokedAt": "2026-09-12T09:44:53.656Z",
  "rejectedAt": "2026-09-12T09:44:53.659Z",
  "limits": "Exact native blocks and timestamps; tests substitute owned session/cwd. Any later corrected invocation or screen is hypothetical, not observed recovery."
}