{
  "provenance": {
    "source": ".context/ship-source-ar-delta-paid-20260910-v1/mode-first-public-ledger-v1/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789053995791-VjvB4e/observation.json",
    "sha256": "55925007512824556322bb8eb40c88172677eb6f4814ba89594d476803fd5e99",
    "sourceCommit": "1e303f1002d3d71c77e60281b1175ee834d91215",
    "actualState": "failed",
    "projection": "Exact public native mode call and post-answer assistant statement. Other setup and downstream calls omitted. No private blocks."
  },
  "selectionStartedAt": 1789054158242,
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [
      {
        "sessionId": "7986b7ff-9ba7-43a2-ac3c-03ff580da641",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01E1HnYjRCz79826bo7nNnoK",
        "questions": [
          {
            "header": "Review mode",
            "question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VuDWLW on main, PLAN.md \u2014 saved project views, approach B (future-proof schema) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push for a bigger product, hold the current scope and harden it, or cut it down. Every scope change is still your explicit opt-in; the mode only changes what I surface.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a plan you want small wastes your decisions on ideas you'll reject; hold-scope on a plan with obvious adjacent wins means you never hear about them.\nRecommendation: Selective expansion because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline is sound, and the landscape check surfaced two or three adjacent ideas (last-used state, default view, shared views) worth a yes/no each rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how ambitious you want this review to be, not what ends up in scope \u2014 that stays your call per item.",
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Selective expansion (recommended)",
                "description": "Hold the current scope as the baseline and harden it, then present each expansion opportunity as its own yes/defer/skip decision with neutral effort and risk. \u2705 You hear every adjacent win but pick only the ones you want. \u2705 The baseline still gets the full rigor pass: errors, edge cases, observability, deployment. \u274c More decisions to answer than hold-scope; roughly five or six extra questions."
              },
              {
                "label": "Scope expansion",
                "description": "Dream big: describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal, then propose each piece enthusiastically for your opt-in. \u2705 Best chance of finding the version that makes members love the task list. \u2705 Surfaces platform potential (views as shared objects, defaults, per-project home). \u274c Risks turning a two-day feature into a quarter; every proposal still needs your yes."
              },
              {
                "label": "Hold scope",
                "description": "The plan's scope is right. Maximum rigor on what is there: failure modes, error map, tests, observability, rollout. No expansions surfaced. \u2705 Fewest questions; fastest path to a bulletproof plan. \u2705 Keeps the pilot honest by measuring exactly the feature the plan describes. \u274c Adjacent wins such as remembering the last-used filter go unmentioned."
              },
              {
                "label": "Scope reduction",
                "description": "Strip to the minimum that ships value, then review that. \u2705 Fastest ship if the goal is only to validate demand in the pilot. \u2705 Forces a clear must-ship vs follow-up split. \u274c Conflicts with the approach you just approved; I would need to re-open D2 to drop the validation layer."
              }
            ],
            "multiSelect": false
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D3 \u2014 Which review mode for the saved views plan? <gstack-qid:plan-ceo-review-mode>\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-VuDWLW on main, PLAN.md \u2014 saved project views, approach B (future-proof schema) approved.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push for a bigger product, hold the current scope and harden it, or cut it down. Every scope change is still your explicit opt-in; the mode only changes what I surface.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a plan you want small wastes your decisions on ideas you'll reject; hold-scope on a plan with obvious adjacent wins means you never hear about them.\nRecommendation: Selective expansion because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline is sound, and the landscape check surfaced two or three adjacent ideas (last-used state, default view, shared views) worth a yes/no each rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how ambitious you want this review to be, not what ends up in scope \u2014 that stays your call per item.": "Hold scope"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-10T15:29:18.292Z"
      }
    ],
    "assistantMessages": [
      {
        "sessionId": "7986b7ff-9ba7-43a2-ac3c-03ff580da641",
        "text": "I'll keep scope fixed to PLAN.md's four bullets plus the approved schema, pressure-testing every stated behavior for failure modes, errors, tests, and production visibility while deferring anything extra rather than adding it silently. Complexity checks out under the smell threshold, so next I'll draft the plan file alongside the deep-review temporal interrogation of decisions the implementer will face in hours two through six.\n\n",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-10T15:29:58.097Z"
      }
    ]
  }
}