{
  "sourceCommit": "6f6730f478e20235b3266d56253d097d02dcdf46",
  "originalOutcome": "paired callback failed on configured attempt 2: Unsupported current CEO decision before reviewCount increment",
  "capture": "Complete public native question, successful answer and report reconstructed from acknowledged Write/Edit operations before this question; no hidden reasoning retained.",
  "reportSha256": "6b6c061ee6e829614754379f5e7415bc7aa5d2ab656204adc30832643b9edca0",
  "call": {
    "sessionId": "6357a819-aaf3-4b9b-a5f2-11c9332352e0",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01VHUeZQQTEfmqKkjjpz6Dn8",
    "questions": [
      {
        "question": "D1 — R1: How much of the success-receipt contract should Test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge should produce, then the test only checks that \"something came back\". That test passes even if the amount is wrong, the currency is wrong, or the receipt is an empty object. This is a repair to meet the plan's own stated contract, not new scope: same test, same file, one stronger assertion line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships wrong amounts or ids to users while the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already spells out the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and pins all three fields.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a one-line stronger assertion (and one shape check by the implementer) against a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks.",
        "header": "R1 Test 1",
        "multiSelect": false,
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
            "description": "✅ Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency in one assertion using the object PLAN.md already lists. ✅ Fails on the costliest regression: cents/dollars amount conversion errors. ❌ Implementer must confirm the receipt has no extra fields, or use toMatchObject on the three listed fields."
          },
          {
            "label": "B) chargeId only",
            "description": "✅ Proves a real mapped receipt came back, not just a truthy value. ✅ Immune to extra-field drift on the receipt object. ❌ Leaves amountCents and currency unguarded; an amount bug passes this test."
          },
          {
            "label": "C) Keep truthy-only as submitted",
            "description": "✅ Smallest possible diff, zero chance of a shape-related flake. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly as written. ❌ Does not test contract C1 at all; passes for an empty object and contradicts the plan's stated purpose."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D1 — R1: How much of the success-receipt contract should Test 1 assert?\nProject/branch/task: main, HOLD SCOPE review of the processPayment test-coverage plan.\nELI10: The plan writes down the exact receipt a 1000-cent USD charge should produce, then the test only checks that \"something came back\". That test passes even if the amount is wrong, the currency is wrong, or the receipt is an empty object. This is a repair to meet the plan's own stated contract, not new scope: same test, same file, one stronger assertion line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a refactor of receipt building ships wrong amounts or ids to users while the suite stays green.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already spells out the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and pins all three fields.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a one-line stronger assertion (and one shape check by the implementer) against a test that cannot fail when the contract breaks.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T15:12:25.264Z"
  },
  "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing — Test Coverage (CEO review working plan)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review in HOLD SCOPE mode on 2026-09-15. Branch: main.\nSource plan: PLAN.md in this repo. Review target is the plan, not the skill checkout.\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts (receipt shape on success,\nretry-then-PaymentUnavailable on repeated 502). Neither has a direct unit test\nin the processPayment suite. This plan adds those two tests using the existing\nfactory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper. Production code is unchanged.\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained (from PLAN.md)\n\n- Unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\n- Stripe adapter suite covers network timeouts, card declines (402), rate\n  limits (429), and 502-then-success recovery.\n- Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\n- Payment test factory configures max_retries=1 and exposes Stripe mock call\n  history. Injected virtual sleeper records backoff without real delays, so an\n  exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\n- These helpers and suites remain in use.\n\nReview note: none of these files are in this checkout (repo holds only\nPLAN.md and CLAUDE.md). Claims above are carried as stated, unverified.\n\n## Existing behavior retained (from PLAN.md) — the contracts under test\n\nC1. Successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\n    amountCents equal to the requested integer amount, currency equal to the\n    requested currency. For 1000-cent USD with Stripe id ch_paid:\n    `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`.\nC2. On repeated 502, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts separated\n    by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then PaymentUnavailable.\n\n## Proposed tests (as submitted in PLAN.md — under review)\n\nTwo tests in the existing processPayment suite, using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code unchanged.\n\n1. Successful charge: Stripe mock returns id ch_paid; call processPayment with\n   amountCents=1000, currency=USD; assert only that the receipt is truthy.\n   Plan text: \"This is the complete planned assertion.\"\n2. Repeated 502: two consecutive Stripe 502 responses; call processPayment;\n   assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable. Plan text: no\n   assertion on mock call history or sleeper record.\n\n---\n\n# Step 0 — Scope challenge (HOLD SCOPE)\n\n## 0A. Premise Challenge\n\n1. Right problem? Yes: pinning already-shipped payment contracts with direct\n   unit tests is the right, cheap move. Receipt mapping and retry exhaustion\n   are the two places a refactor of processPayment silently breaks money\n   handling.\n2. Outcome vs proxy: the stated outcome is \"unit coverage of C1 and C2\". The\n   submitted assertions measure a proxy: \"processPayment resolves to\n   something\" and \"processPayment rejects with the right class\". Neither\n   test fails if C1 or C2 regress:\n   - Test 1 passes for `{}`, for `amountCents: 100000`, for `currency: \"usd\"`,\n     for `chargeId: undefined`. Truthy is not a receipt contract.\n   - Test 2 passes if the code never retries (one attempt), retries five\n     times, or skips the backoff entirely. The factory already exposes the\n     exact two instruments (call history, sleeper record) that would catch\n     this, and the plan opts out of using them.\n   Internal contradiction: section \"Existing behavior retained\" says \"this\n   plan adds their unit coverage\"; section \"Proposed tests\" adds coverage of\n   neither contract. Coverage-line metrics would go up while the contracts\n   stay unguarded (proxy metric, not user outcome).\n3. Do nothing: the contracts stay implemented and untested at the\n   processPayment layer. Pain is real but latent; it surfaces on the next\n   refactor of receipt building or retry loop, in production, as wrong\n   amounts or a hung/duplicated charge path.\n\n## 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Reused? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Build processPayment under test with max_retries=1 | payment test factory | Yes |\n| Script Stripe responses (ch_paid, 502, 502) | Stripe mock | Yes |\n| Observe attempt count | factory-exposed mock call history | Available, unused by plan |\n| Observe backoff without wall-clock delay | injected virtual sleeper record | Available, unused by plan |\n| 502-then-success recovery | Stripe adapter suite | Already covered, not duplicated |\n| Receipt-builder failure paths | receipt-builder regression tests | Already covered, not duplicated |\n\nNothing is rebuilt. The gap is that two available instruments go unused.\n\n## 0C. Dream State Mapping\n\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                    THIS PLAN                       12-MONTH IDEAL\n  C1, C2 implemented,     --->     +2 tests that exist    --->     Every stated payment contract\n  untested at the                  but do not pin C1/C2            has an assertion that fails\n  processPayment layer             (as submitted)                  when the contract breaks;\n                                                                   receipt shape, attempt count\n                                                                   and backoff are all pinned\n```\n\nAs submitted the plan moves sideways: more tests, same unguarded contracts.\nWith the assertions repaired it moves directly toward the ideal.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 (user) — Test 1 assertion depth | C1 receipt shape; evidence: PLAN.md \"Existing behavior retained\" states the exact expected object. Factory/mock not in checkout (unverified). | Assert receipt is truthy only (\"complete planned assertion\"). | Pending: see options below. | unresolved | — |\n| R2 (user) — Test 2 assertion depth | C2 two attempts + one 100 ms backoff + PaymentUnavailable; evidence: PLAN.md states factory exposes call history and sleeper record. Not in checkout (unverified). | Assert rejects with PaymentUnavailable only; no call-history or sleeper assertion. | Pending: see options below. | unresolved | — |\n\nRows are independently selectable: either test's assertions can be\nstrengthened while the other stays as submitted. Both are repairs to meet the\nplan's own stated invariants (HOLD SCOPE keeps invariants; repairs are in\nscope). Neither adds a test, a file, or touches production code.\n\nStated limits (kept): 1 file changed (the processPayment suite), 2 tests\nadded, 0 production changes, 0 new helpers. Counts are exact per PLAN.md.\n\n## 0D. Alternatives — R1: Test 1 (successful charge) assertion depth\n\nThree approaches. Each resolves only R1; Test 2 and everything else stay fixed.\n\n**A) Assert the full receipt** — `expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\",\namountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" })`. Effort S. Risk low.\n- Pros: pins all three fields of C1 in one line; fails on wrong id, wrong\n  amount, wrong currency, missing field, or extra unexpected field; uses the\n  exact object PLAN.md already wrote down.\n- Cons: `toEqual` fails if the real receipt carries extra fields the plan did\n  not list (e.g. `createdAt`); implementer must confirm shape or use\n  `toMatchObject` for the three listed fields. Cannot verify shape in this\n  checkout.\n- Reuse: factory + Stripe mock, no new helpers. Coverage: C1 fully.\n\n**B) Assert chargeId only** — `expect(receipt.chargeId).toBe(\"ch_paid\")`.\nEffort S. Risk low.\n- Pros: proves the receipt is a real mapped object, not just truthy; immune to\n  extra-field drift.\n- Cons: amountCents and currency stay unguarded; an amount conversion bug\n  (cents vs dollars) is the highest-cost regression in this contract and B\n  does not catch it.\n- Coverage: one of three C1 fields.\n\n**C) Keep as submitted (truthy only)** — Effort S. Risk high for the stated\ngoal.\n- Pros: zero chance of extra-field flake; smallest possible diff.\n- Cons: does not test C1 at all; passes for `{}`; the test's name promises\n  coverage the assertion does not deliver; contradicts the plan's own\n  \"adds their unit coverage\" statement.\n- Coverage: none of C1.\n\nCommitment grid:\n\n```text\nCommitment                          | Source/approval or pending          | Current | A   | B   | C\nchargeId === \"ch_paid\" asserted     | C1 in PLAN.md; pending              | no      | yes | yes | no\namountCents === 1000 asserted       | C1 in PLAN.md; pending              | no      | yes | no  | no\ncurrency === \"USD\" asserted         | C1 in PLAN.md; pending              | no      | yes | no  | no\nReceipt truthy asserted             | PLAN.md as submitted                | yes     | yes (implied) | yes (implied) | yes\nUses existing factory + Stripe mock | PLAN.md, retained                   | yes     | yes | yes | yes\nNo production change                | PLAN.md, retained                   | yes     | yes | yes | yes\nTest 2 assertions                   | R2, pending — unchanged by this row | as submitted | same | same | same\n```\n\nNo shared independent commitment hides in the grid; all three options differ\nonly in how much of C1 they pin. Completeness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=3/10.\n"
}