{
  "source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
  "cases": [
    {
      "label": "five",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "9bd59b2a-ac16-4357-a379-795b63055694",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01DvNdNFbDYz9BSRCQxi6MiM",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 \u2014 How should the new handler get wired in: through WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md Architecture section says the new class bypasses WebhookDispatcher; PLAN.md:100-103 says this is still open.\nELI10: Today every Stripe event enters through one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that already checks the signature, dedupes, locks the user, and checks ownership before any handler runs. The plan wants to build a second door for the new handler so the dispatcher module stays \"clean\". A second door has to re-install every one of those locks itself, and the feature flag and rollback have to learn about it too. The class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler) is already settled and gives you the namespace separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a bypass that misses one guard means a replayed or forged payment event marks a user paid or sends a receipt; a bypass that misses flag wiring breaks the tested rollback.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming choice already satisfied by the class name; bypassing the dispatcher forks the guarded path for no user-visible gain.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing path with free guards and rollback vs. a module-purity preference that costs a second entry point to keep safe forever.",
            "header": "Wiring",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Signature, dedup, per-user lock, ownership guard, flag, and trace attribution all apply with zero new wiring\n\u2705 Smallest diff (~2 files); rollback path identical to today's tested one\n\u274c Dispatcher module gains a one-line registration referencing the new namespace"
              },
              {
                "label": "Bypass dispatcher (plan as written)",
                "description": "\u2705 WebhookDispatcher never references the new class; strict module separation\n\u2705 Handler can evolve its own entry contract independently later\n\u274c Second entry point must independently re-wire every guard, the flag, rollback, and handler-identity tracing; plan does not say how (human: ~1-2 days / CC: ~1 hr)"
              },
              {
                "label": "Extend WebhookDispatcher, no new class",
                "description": "\u2705 Smallest possible surface; nothing new to register or route\n\u2705 Every guard and trace stays exactly where it is\n\u274c Contradicts the approved motivation (application-owned handler with the settled class name); payment logic grows inside a shared module"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D2 \u2014 How should the new handler get wired in: through WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it?\nProject/branch/task: main; PLAN.md Architecture section says the new class bypasses WebhookDispatcher; PLAN.md:100-103 says this is still open.\nELI10: Today every Stripe event enters through one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that already checks the signature, dedupes, locks the user, and checks ownership before any handler runs. The plan wants to build a second door for the new handler so the dispatcher module stays \"clean\". A second door has to re-install every one of those locks itself, and the feature flag and rollback have to learn about it too. The class name (Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler) is already settled and gives you the namespace separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a bypass that misses one guard means a replayed or forged payment event marks a user paid or sends a receipt; a bypass that misses flag wiring breaks the tested rollback.\nRecommendation: A because namespace separation is a naming choice already satisfied by the class name; bypassing the dispatcher forks the guarded path for no user-visible gain.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=7/10\nNet: one routing path with free guards and rollback vs. a module-purity preference that costs a second entry point to keep safe forever.": "Register in WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:26.947Z"
      },
      "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing Integration \u2014 CEO Review (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (fixture repo, base branch `main`, no remote).\nReview skill: `/plan-ceo-review`, mode HOLD SCOPE (explicit user choice).\nSession: 1332703-1789475393-bbb0db9c. Date: 2026-09-15.\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation is to move Stripe payment-success orchestration out of the\nprior library-adapter handler into application-owned code, keeping the existing\npayment and receipt behavior byte-for-byte. The plan text under review is short and\ncarries four choices that each need scrutiny: bypassing `WebhookDispatcher`,\ninterpolating `request.params.userId` into raw SQL, running the receipt email inline\nwith no error handling, and shipping with no automated tests and an N+1 order loop.\n\nEverything in \"Existing contracts retained\" (PLAN.md:7-103) is treated as fact and\nis NOT re-litigated here: signature verification, event-ID dedup with per-user lock,\nownership guard, unknown-user guard, recipient policy for empty addresses, mail\nidempotency key, durable failed-notification record, dashboards, runbooks, feature\nflag with tested rollback, 1s mail deadline, 2s DB/ingress budget inside the 10s\nStripe deadline.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo: two files (`CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md`), one commit `aae5002 Seed review plan`. No stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no architecture docs, no design doc, no CEO handoff note.\n- No prior review cycles or reverts on this branch (retrospective check: nothing to flag).\n- No source code is present; the review is against the plan's stated contracts only. Every \"existing X\" claim below is taken from PLAN.md, not verified in code. Flagged as a known limitation.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. Section 11 (design) will be skipped as not applicable.\n- Prior learnings: none recorded. Brain context: cold (no product/goals/decisions digests). `cross_project_learnings` config returned empty; not prompted because there are zero learnings to search either way.\n- Preamble instruction D1 (add gstack routing rules to CLAUDE.md): user chose **A) Add routing rules**. Plan mode blocks the edit and commit; carried as a post-review follow-up (see Follow-ups).\n\n## Landscape check (Search Before Building)\n\nAside not installed; used host WebSearch (one read-only query, sanitized).\n\n- **[Layer 1] Tried and true:** verify signature on raw body, dedupe by `event.id` in the same transaction as the business write, keep the handler fast, make every side effect idempotent, treat notification failure separately from payment failure.\n- **[Layer 2] Current guidance (2026):** ack with 200 quickly and do slow side effects (email, ERP sync) out of band; Stripe retries non-2xx for up to 72h with backoff; idempotency record and business work belong in one transaction.\n  Sources: [Hooklistener](https://www.hooklistener.com/learn/stripe-webhooks-implementation), [HookRay](https://hookray.com/blog/stripe-webhook-best-practices-2026), [Webhook Watchtower](https://webhookwatchtower.co.uk/blog/stripe-webhook-guide), [The Road to Enterprise](https://theroadtoenterprise.com/blog/stripe-webhook-idempotency-production), [Appycodes](https://appycodes.dev/blog/stripe-webhooks-end-to-end-2026/).\n- **[Layer 3] First principles for THIS plan:** the retained contracts already deliver dedup, idempotent update, idempotent send, durable failed-send record, and a 1s mail cap inside a 10s budget. So a background queue is not required to be correct here. What the plan gets wrong is not sync-vs-async; it is that an email exception becomes an HTTP 500, which tells Stripe the *payment processing* failed when the payment row is already committed. That misclassification, plus the raw SQL and the unbounded order loop, are the real risks.\n\n## Step 0A. Premise challenge\n\n1. **Right problem?** Yes, narrowly. Owning the orchestration code is a legitimate goal (library-adapter handlers are hard to test and evolve). But the plan's stated reason for bypassing the dispatcher is \"clean namespace separation\", which is a naming concern, and naming is already settled (`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`). Namespace does not require bypassing routing.\n2. **Outcome?** Same product behavior, code the team owns. The plan reaches it directly. It also silently changes two behaviors it claims to retain: notification failure now returns 500 (was it 500 before? unstated), and user lookup becomes SQL-injectable.\n3. **Do nothing?** Pain is real but not urgent: the prior handler works and has a tested rollback. That makes this a two-way door with a feature flag, so speed is fine, but the SQL choice is a one-way door on a payments path and gets full rigor.\n\n## Step 0B. Existing code leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per PLAN.md) | Plan's proposal | Rebuild? |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Signature, event-type filter, param adaptation | ingress middleware + payload adapter | unchanged | no |\n| Dedup + per-user lock | event guard | unchanged | no |\n| Routing to handler | `WebhookDispatcher` | **bypassed** | yes, unexplained (D2) |\n| User lookup | existing lookup with TEXT id, no cast | raw SQL fragment from `params.userId` | rebuild, worse |\n| User update | existing update (status=paid, PI id) | reused | no |\n| Order loading for receipt summary | existing order loop | per-order query loop | kept, N+1 |\n| Receipt email | shared mail client (idempotent, 1s deadline, durable failure record) | inline, no rescue | reused; error policy new |\n| Observability | ingress wrapper logs, DB/mail traces, dashboards, alerts, runbooks | unchanged | no |\n| Rollout | feature flag + tested rollback + manual staging replay | reused | no |\n\nThe plan rebuilds nothing large; its risks are point choices inside a mostly retained pipeline.\n\n## Step 0C. Dream state\n\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                          THIS PLAN                             12-MONTH IDEAL\n  library-adapter handler owns   --->    app-owned handler class, same   --->  app-owned handlers per event\n  orchestration; shared guards,          product behavior, still inside        type, all routed through one\n  dispatcher, mail client, runbooks      the shared guards                     dispatcher; parameterized\n  already in place                                                             queries only; notification\n                                                                               failures never return 5xx;\n                                                                               handler-level test suite\n                                                                               guards each contract line\n```\n\nThe plan moves toward the ideal on ownership and away from it on three points: dispatcher bypass (makes a second routing path to maintain), raw SQL (regresses a currently safe lookup), and no tests (the 50 lines of \"existing contracts\" are exactly the regression surface an automated suite should pin).\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) | gstack routing rules in CLAUDE.md; preamble instruction block | no routing section | append routing section + chore commit | approved | AskUserQuestion D1 \u2192 \"Add routing rules\"; execution deferred until plan mode exits |\n| D2 (user) | Handler registration path. PLAN.md:10-11 and 100-103: dispatcher \"remains available\", separate-vs-reuse \"remains open\"; class name settled | prior library-adapter handler registered via `WebhookDispatcher` | plan text: new class bypasses `WebhookDispatcher` for \"clean namespace separation\" | unresolved | pending |\n\n### D2 options (approach comparison)\n\n| Commitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A: register new class in `WebhookDispatcher` | B: bypass dispatcher (plan as written) | C: no new class; extend `WebhookDispatcher` |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` | settled (PLAN.md:100-103) | n/a | yes | yes | no class |\n| Runs inside signature/dedup/lock/ownership guards | retained (PLAN.md:38-39) | yes | yes, dispatcher is the proven path in | must be re-wired manually; second entry point to keep guarded | yes |\n| Feature flag swaps prior \u2194 new handler | retained (PLAN.md:74-75) | flag selects handler | flag selects dispatcher target | flag must gate a separate route/entry | flag selects code path inside dispatcher |\n| Handler identity in outcome traces | retained (PLAN.md:98-99) | yes | unchanged | must be re-plumbed for the new entry | unchanged |\n| Files touched (est.) | pending | \u2014 | ~2 (new class + dispatcher registration) | ~3-4 (new class, new route/entry, guard wiring, flag wiring) | ~1-2 |\n\n- **A) Register in WebhookDispatcher.** New `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`, registered as the `payment_intent.succeeded` target behind the existing flag. Effort S, risk low. Pros: one routing path, guards and tracing come for free, smallest diff, rollback path identical to today. Cons: the dispatcher module keeps a dependency on the new namespace (that is a one-line registration, not coupling). Reuse: everything. Verification: same staging replay; handler unit tests possible.\n- **B) Bypass dispatcher (as written).** Separate entry for the new class. Effort M, risk medium-high. Pros: the dispatcher module never learns about the new class. Cons: a second entry point that must independently sit inside the signature/dedup/lock/ownership guards and the flag; the plan asserts it \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" without saying how; rollout attribution and the tested rollback both need re-wiring; future event types face the same fork. Reuse: partial. Verification: staging replay must also prove every guard still fires on the new path.\n- **C) Extend WebhookDispatcher in place.** No new class; move orchestration into dispatcher code. Effort S, risk low-medium. Pros: smallest surface. Cons: contradicts the approved motivation (application-owned handler code, settled class name); grows a shared module with payment-specific logic. Reuse: full. Verification: same.\n\nRecommendation: A. \"Clean namespace separation\" is satisfied by the settled class name; bypassing the dispatcher buys nothing and forks the guarded path.\n\n## Follow-ups\n\n- D1: after this review exits plan mode, append the gstack skill-routing section to `CLAUDE.md` and commit `chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md`.\n",
      "savedPlanSha256": "9ced0689941ad0475c722a5b29e6449ac64f25eac64fedd9298dc8df49288c87",
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-gd1Yvn/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptions propagate to that ingress wrapper, which logs\nthe failure and returns HTTP 500 so Stripe retries the event. The existing\nevent-ID dedup guard records completion only after the database transaction\ncommits; failed or rolled-back database attempts remain retryable.\nThe deployment already has a handler feature flag and a documented, tested\nrollback to the prior handler; this change uses that existing rollout path.\nThat documented manual rollout checklist already requires a staging\npayment-event replay for this handler and verification of the user update,\nemail delivery, and correlated outcome trace before enabling it broadly.\nThis is manual deployment verification, not automated handler regression\ncoverage; no new automated tests are planned in the Tests section below.\nThe existing notification contract sends one payment receipt per PaymentIntent,\nincluding a summary of the user orders. With zero orders it still sends one\nreceipt with an empty order summary; the order loop is data loading, never\none email or payment update per order. These product semantics are retained.\nThe shared mail client already derives a provider idempotency key from that\nPaymentIntent ID. The provider durably suppresses duplicate successful sends\nfor the same key across process crashes, webhook retries, and manual retries.\nBefore rethrowing a failed or timed-out send, that client durably records the\nnotification attempt for the existing retry procedure. The dashboard and\non-call alert already monitor failed-notification age and backlog after an\noutage clears, as well as failure rate; the runbook retries those records.\nThe existing mail-client deadline is one second, enforced by cancellation\nof the provider request with no inline retries. It raises MailTimeout on\nexpiry. The retained DB/ingress deadlines bound their combined work to two\nseconds, leaving headroom inside the existing ten-second webhook deadline.\nNeither deadlines nor retry records catch the mail exception for this handler;\nthe shared client still rethrows it to the inline caller described below.\nEvery existing event-correlated outcome trace includes the active handler\nidentity (prior or new), so rollout attribution is already available.\nIf a separate handler class is retained, its already-approved name is\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` in the application-owned namespace,\nnever the Stripe library namespace. This naming choice is settled; whether\nto add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open.\n\n## Architecture\nWe're adding a new `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class that will handle Stripe webhooks.\nThis bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module \u2014 we want a clean\nnamespace separation.\n\n## Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL\nfragment for the lookup query.\n\n## Webhook fan-out\nOn payment success we update the user record AND fire a notification email.\nBoth happen inline; no error handling on the email leg.\n\n## Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\n\n## Performance\nEach webhook lookup hits the database for the user, then fetches each\norder in a loop.",
      "seedSha256": "3fbcbc43ad7730b762d3192c71f53949c340ead6d2ee9f0a7df27662a893ae2e",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:25.356Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01K1oUmgKA8xnKqHvBsHbE3A",
          "filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-gd1Yvn/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:09.476Z"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "label": "paired",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "9229e100-e069-4fd3-ad2a-d9476a7253df",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_014qv3yUzYgZUQATzY4msrQN",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 \u2014 Ledger R1: what should the successful-charge test assert about the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge, ch_paid / 1000 / USD).\nELI10: The plan spells out the exact receipt the caller must get back (chargeId copied from Stripe, amountCents and currency copied from the request), then plans to check only that \"something came back\". A refactor that returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } would pass that test. The test factory and Stripe mock already give you the exact expected value, so the full check is one toEqual line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong amount or currency on a receipt ships green; customers see the wrong charge on their receipt and support finds out from them, not from CI.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's stated goal is coverage of this contract, and exact equality is the only option that rejects each of the three field mappings going wrong. Maps to: well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: A pins the whole contract for one line of test code; B and C leave amount and currency unguarded.",
            "header": "R1 receipt",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Exact receipt equality (recommended)",
                "description": "expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" })\n\u2705 Rejects a wrong chargeId, wrong amountCents, wrong currency, and stray or missing fields\n\u2705 Zero new infrastructure: uses the factory and Stripe mock the plan already names (human: ~10 min / CC: ~1 min)\n\u274c Test must be updated if the receipt shape intentionally gains a field (that is the point)"
              },
              {
                "label": "B) chargeId only",
                "description": "expect(receipt.chargeId).toBe(\"ch_paid\")\n\u2705 Confirms the Stripe id is propagated, which is the field most likely to be dropped\n\u2705 Tolerant of receipt-shape growth without touching the test\n\u274c amountCents and currency mapping stay unguarded; a request/response mix-up ships green"
              },
              {
                "label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
                "description": "expect(receipt).toBeTruthy()\n\u2705 Matches PLAN.md line 31-32 exactly; no plan amendment needed\n\u2705 Never breaks on any receipt change\n\u274c Passes for any non-null value, including a receipt with every field wrong; provides no coverage of contract C1"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D2 \u2014 Ledger R1: what should the successful-charge test assert about the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md test 1 (successful charge, ch_paid / 1000 / USD).\nELI10: The plan spells out the exact receipt the caller must get back (chargeId copied from Stripe, amountCents and currency copied from the request), then plans to check only that \"something came back\". A refactor that returns { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 100000, currency: \"EUR\" } would pass that test. The test factory and Stripe mock already give you the exact expected value, so the full check is one toEqual line.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong amount or currency on a receipt ships green; customers see the wrong charge on their receipt and support finds out from them, not from CI.\nRecommendation: A because the plan's stated goal is coverage of this contract, and exact equality is the only option that rejects each of the three field mappings going wrong. Maps to: well-tested code is non-negotiable; explicit over clever.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10\nNet: A pins the whole contract for one line of test code; B and C leave amount and currency unguarded.": "A) Exact receipt equality (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:16.917Z"
      },
      "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed plan: `PLAN.md` @ 33f85de on `main`. Review skill: `/plan-ceo-review`.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). `/office-hours` skipped (explicit user instruction).\nSubsequent reviews: user will run manually (explicit user instruction; no next-skill handoff question).\n\n## Working plan (from PLAN.md, verbatim contracts)\n\n### Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nUnit tests only; `processPayment()` production behavior stays as-is. Per the plan (source not present in this repo, so unverified here):\n- Stripe adapter suite covers network timeouts, card declines (402), rate 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`, exposes Stripe mock call history, and injects a virtual sleeper that records backoff without real delays. An exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\n\n### Existing behavior retained (contracts this plan is meant to cover)\n- C1: Successful charge returns `{ chargeId: <Stripe id>, amountCents: <requested>, currency: <requested> }`. Example: 1000-cent USD charge with Stripe id `ch_paid` returns `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`.\n- C2: On repeated 502 with `max_retries=1`: exactly two charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff between them, then rejection with `PaymentUnavailable`.\n\n### Proposed tests (as submitted)\nTwo tests in the existing `processPayment` suite, using its factory, Stripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n1. Successful charge: mock returns id `ch_paid`; call with `amountCents=1000`, `currency=USD`; **assert only that the receipt is truthy** (stated as the complete planned assertion).\n2. Repeated 502: two consecutive 502s; **assert only rejection with `PaymentUnavailable`**; no assertion on mock call history or sleeper record.\n\n## Step 0 \u2014 Pre-review system audit\n- Repo: `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md` only. One commit (`33f85de Seed review plan`). No remote, no stash, no TODO/FIXME, no TODOS.md, no design doc, no handoff note, no prior review log, no learnings, no brain digests.\n- Base branch: `main` (git-native fallback; platform unknown).\n- The production code and test suite named by the plan are not in this checkout. Every claim about factory/mock/sleeper behavior is **plan-stated, unverified**. This review treats them as stated invariants, not confirmed facts.\n- Retrospective check: no prior cycles on this branch.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none detected. Section 11 will be `SKIPPED (no UI scope)`.\n- Landscape check: search unavailable in this environment (no Aside, no WebSearch needed for a two-test plan); proceeding with in-distribution knowledge. Layer 1 (tried and true) for retry tests: assert the exact attempt count and exact backoff schedule via injected clock/sleeper. That is exactly the infrastructure the plan says already exists.\n\n## Step 0A \u2014 Premise challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: C1 and C2 are stated contracts with no `processPayment`-level coverage (adapter suite covers 502-then-success, not 502-exhausted; receipt-builder tests cover failure, not the success mapping).\n2. Outcome vs proxy: the outcome is regression protection for C1/C2. As written, test 1 passes for any non-null return (wrong `amountCents`, wrong currency, missing `chargeId` all pass); test 2 passes for a loop that never retries, retries 10 times, or skips backoff entirely. The plan as submitted delivers the proxy (two green tests) without the outcome. The plan's own words say \"this plan adds their unit coverage\"; the assertions do not.\n3. Do nothing: C1/C2 stay unguarded at the caller level. A refactor that drops the backoff or maps `amountCents` from the Stripe response instead of the request ships green. Real pain, not hypothetical: retry/backoff regressions are silent until a Stripe outage.\n\n## Step 0B \u2014 Existing code leverage\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Plan reuses? |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | Stripe mock in payment test factory | Yes (both tests) |\n| Count charge attempts | Mock call history, exposed by factory | **No** (test 2 ignores it) |\n| Observe backoff without delay | Injected virtual sleeper with record | **No** (test 2 ignores it) |\n| Fixed retry budget | Factory sets `max_retries=1` | Yes (implicitly) |\nNothing is rebuilt. The gap is unused leverage, not duplicated code.\n\n## Step 0C \u2014 Dream state\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                    THIS PLAN                        12-MONTH IDEAL\n  C1/C2 implemented, no            +2 tests in processPayment       Every processPayment contract\n  processPayment-level tests;  ---> suite; assertion depth     --->  (receipt shape, attempt count,\n  adapter + receipt-builder         under review (R1-R3)             backoff schedule, error class)\n  suites cover neighbors                                             pinned by exact assertions\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal only if the tests pin the contracts. Truthy/rejects-only assertions move sideways.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 \u2014 setup (gstack routing) | gstack onboarding block, skill-start session 1332704-1789475394-d41bc792 | No routing rules in CLAUDE.md | Append routing section + chore commit | approved | User chose \"Add routing rules\" (D1). Plan mode blocks the write now; queued for after plan mode exits. Not a plan remedy. |\n| R1 \u2014 Step 0D / Section 6 (test 1 assertion depth) | C1 receipt shape; plan lines 18-21 state the exact expected receipt; plan line 31-32 asserts truthy only. Evidence: plan text; source unverified. | `expect(receipt).toBeTruthy()` | Assert exact receipt equality `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` | unresolved | \u2014 |\n| R2 \u2014 Step 0D / Section 6 (test 2 attempt count) | C2 \"two total charge attempts\"; factory exposes mock call history (plan lines 12-14). Plan line 35 declines this assertion. | none | Assert Stripe mock charge call count === 2 | unresolved | \u2014 |\n| R3 \u2014 Step 0D / Section 6 (test 2 backoff record) | C2 \"one recorded 100 ms backoff\"; virtual sleeper records backoff (plan lines 13-14). Plan line 35-36 declines this assertion. | none | Assert virtual sleeper record equals exactly `[100]` (one entry, 100 ms) | unresolved | \u2014 |\n\nReopen justification (0D step 1): concrete contradiction inside the plan. Lines 24 and 27 promise unit coverage of C1/C2; lines 30-36 specify assertions that cannot detect a violation of either contract. Not speculation.\n\n### R1 option comparison\n| Commitment | Source | Current | A: exact receipt equality | B: chargeId only | C: truthy (as planned) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Rejects wrong `chargeId` | C1 | no | yes | yes | no |\n| Rejects wrong `amountCents` | C1 | no | yes | no | no |\n| Rejects wrong `currency` | C1 | no | yes | no | no |\n| Rejects extra/missing fields | C1 (shape) | no | yes (toEqual) | no | no |\n| Reuses factory/mock | plan | yes | yes | yes | yes |\n| Effort / risk | | | S / low | S / low | S / low |\nCompleteness: A=10, B=5, C=3. Recommendation: A.\n\n### R2 option comparison\n| Commitment | Source | Current | A: exactly 2 attempts | B: at least 1 attempt | C: none (as planned) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Rejects zero-retry loop (1 attempt) | C2 | no | yes | no | no |\n| Rejects runaway retry (3+ attempts) | C2 | no | yes | no | no |\n| Uses exposed call history | plan 0B | no | yes | yes | no |\n| Effort / risk | | | S / low | S / low | \u2014 |\nCompleteness: A=10, B=5, C=3. Recommendation: A.\n\n### R3 option comparison\n| Commitment | Source | Current | A: sleeper record === [100] | B: one backoff, any duration | C: none (as planned) |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Rejects missing backoff | C2 | no | yes | yes | no |\n| Rejects wrong duration (e.g. 0 or 1000 ms) | C2 | no | yes | no | no |\n| Rejects extra backoff after final attempt | C2 (\"one\") | no | yes | no | no |\n| Uses injected virtual sleeper | plan 0B | no | yes | yes | no |\n| Effort / risk | | | S / low | S / low | \u2014 |\nCompleteness: A=10, B=7, C=3. Recommendation: A.\n\nR1, R2, R3 are independently selectable: a user can pin the receipt shape and still decline the backoff assertion, or pin attempt count without the sleeper. They share the factory but no other coupling.\n",
      "savedPlanSha256": "eee9233a41f6a1becdf1b56f4bab45b22f6755df79407c7e225ed9a3b6e48851",
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-KMXrWY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.",
      "seedSha256": "462a5d1d6e0e7588c4adfe595fa4d83d31832115df41380dab722c10a86ff432",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:15.119Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01C5mLHRG4QqjPzxQ96fNJ7U",
          "filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-KMXrWY/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:32:51.425Z"
        },
        {
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01Kv8f63DWtxFYstmYLQC3Xg",
          "filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1332436-eqKgln/with-skills/.claude/plans/purring-tumbling-harp.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:32:57.934Z"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "label": "paired-retry",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "f2ee66ea-0aad-4858-b40f-2737351b63a7",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01FRsiBsYoiMQKVyn5K3wL3W",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): how deep should the receipt assertion go?\nProject/branch/task: main, adding unit coverage to the processPayment suite; ledger row D1.\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is not null, so a receipt with the wrong amount or currency would pass. This decides whether the test guards the contract or just proves the function returned something.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-mapping bug (wrong amount, wrong currency) ships with a green test suite and customers see wrong numbers.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and covers every mapped field.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one toEqual line vs a test that cannot fail on the bugs that matter.",
            "header": "D1 receipt",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency exactly as the plan's contract states them\n\u2705 Catches amount/currency mix-ups, the receipt bugs customers actually notice\n\u274c Needs a one-line update if the receipt legitimately gains a new field later"
              },
              {
                "label": "B) chargeId only",
                "description": "\u2705 Proves the Stripe id is plumbed through to the receipt\n\u2705 Tolerates future receipt shape changes without edits\n\u274c amountCents and currency stay unguarded; wrong amount still passes"
              },
              {
                "label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
                "description": "\u2705 Cannot false-fail on any receipt shape change\n\u2705 Zero change from the plan as written\n\u274c An empty object or a wrong amount passes; this is a smoke test, not contract coverage"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D1 \u2014 Test 1 (successful charge): how deep should the receipt assertion go?\nProject/branch/task: main, adding unit coverage to the processPayment suite; ledger row D1.\nELI10: The plan's own contract says a 1000-cent USD charge must return exactly { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. The planned test only checks that the receipt is not null, so a receipt with the wrong amount or currency would pass. This decides whether the test guards the contract or just proves the function returned something.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt-mapping bug (wrong amount, wrong currency) ships with a green test suite and customers see wrong numbers.\nRecommendation: A because the plan already states the exact expected object; asserting it is one line and covers every mapped field.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: one toEqual line vs a test that cannot fail on the bugs that matter.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:43.590Z"
      },
      "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nSource plan: `PLAN.md` on `main` (commit 86a8d2f). Reviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). /office-hours skipped by user instruction.\n\n## Context\n`processPayment()` already implements two contracts: a successful charge returns a receipt\ncopied from Stripe (`{ chargeId, amountCents, currency }`), and repeated 502s with\n`max_retries=1` produce exactly two charge attempts separated by one recorded 100 ms backoff,\nthen reject with `PaymentUnavailable`. Neither contract has direct unit coverage in the\nprocessPayment suite. This plan adds that coverage using the existing factory, Stripe mock and\nvirtual sleeper. Production code and all other tests stay unchanged.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n- Repo contents: `PLAN.md`, `CLAUDE.md` only. No source, no test suite present in this checkout;\n  the plan's claims about the factory, mock and sleeper are taken from the plan text and cannot\n  be verified against code here (marked UNVERIFIED below).\n- Git: single commit `86a8d2f Seed review plan`, clean tree, no stash, no remote (platform\n  unknown; base branch falls back to `main`).\n- TODO/FIXME/HACK grep: none. TODOS.md: absent. Design doc: none. Handoff note: none.\n- Prior learnings: 0. Brain digests: cold. Cross-project learnings config: unset (prompt\n  deferred; plan mode blocks config writes).\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles on this branch.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. DESIGN_SCOPE = false; Section 11 will be skipped.\n- Pending post-plan-mode action (D0 approved): append gstack skill-routing rules to\n  `CLAUDE.md` and commit `chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md`.\n\n### Landscape check (Layer 1/2/3)\n- Layer 1 (tried and true): retry tests inject a fake clock/sleeper and assert the attempt\n  count and delay sequence, not only the terminal error.\n- Layer 2 (search, via WebSearch; Aside not installed): same guidance. \"Assert backend\n  invocation count\", \"assert the delay sequence with a fake sleep\", \"define maxAttempts vs\n  maxRetries explicitly because teams disagree whether the initial call counts.\"\n  Sources: oneuptime.com 2026-08-14 deterministic retry testing; qaskills.sh retry-after /\n  fake-timers guides.\n- Layer 3 (first principles): this factory already exposes call history and the sleeper record.\n  A test that ignores both leaves the two most regression-prone numbers (attempt count, backoff\n  duration) unguarded while the tooling to guard them is already wired in. No eureka; the\n  conventional wisdom holds.\n\n## Step 0A. Premise challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes. Two documented contracts lack direct tests; adding them is the cheapest\n   way to lock the behavior before anything touches retry or receipt code.\n2. Outcome: a regression in receipt mapping or retry count fails CI instead of reaching\n   customers (double charges on a retry bug, wrong amount on a receipt bug). As written, the\n   plan's assertions do NOT reach that outcome: `truthy` passes for any object, and\n   `rejects with PaymentUnavailable` passes whether the code retried 0, 1 or 5 times.\n3. Do nothing: pain is real but latent. The contracts hold today; the risk is silent drift.\n\n## Step 0B. Existing code leverage (UNVERIFIED against source in this checkout)\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Reuse |\n|---|---|---|\n| Deterministic Stripe responses | payment test factory + Stripe mock | yes |\n| Observe attempts | mock call history exposed by factory | yes, currently unused by plan |\n| Observe backoff | injected virtual sleeper record | yes, currently unused by plan |\n| `max_retries=1` config | factory default | yes |\n| 502 then success | Stripe adapter suite | already covered, not duplicated |\n| Receipt-builder failures | own regression tests | already covered, not duplicated |\nNothing is rebuilt. No new helpers needed.\n\n## Step 0C. Dream state\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                       THIS PLAN                        12-MONTH IDEAL\n  Contracts implemented,       --->   Two direct tests in the    --->  Every documented\n  documented in prose only,           processPayment suite             processPayment contract\n  guarded indirectly by               pinning receipt shape and        has a named test; retry\n  adapter/builder suites              retry count + backoff            policy changes fail CI\n```\nMoves toward the ideal only if the tests assert the contracts, not just non-nullness.\n\n## Decision ledger\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D0 (user) | gstack routing rules in CLAUDE.md | none | append routing section + commit | approved | AskUserQuestion D0 \u2192 \"Add routing rules\". Deferred until plan mode exits. |\n| D1 (user) | Test 1 assertion depth. Contract (plan \u00a7Existing behavior): receipt `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }`. Evidence: plan text; source UNVERIFIED here. | Assert `receipt` is truthy only | Assert full receipt equality | unresolved | pending |\n| D2 (user) | Test 2 retry-contract assertions. Contract: exactly 2 charge attempts, one recorded 100 ms backoff, then `PaymentUnavailable`. Evidence: plan text; factory exposes call history + sleeper record. | Assert rejection with `PaymentUnavailable` only | Also assert call count == 2 and sleeper record == [100] | unresolved | pending |\n\nD1 and D2 are separate rows: either can be accepted while the other stays as planned. Both are\n\"proposed tests for existing behavior\" (0D table row 3): independently selectable additions.\n\n### D1 comparison \u2014 Test 1 assertion depth\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\n---|---|---|---|---|---\nCall `processPayment(1000, \"USD\")` with mock id `ch_paid` | plan, approved | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAssert receipt truthy | plan | yes | subsumed | subsumed | yes\nAssert `chargeId === \"ch_paid\"` | pending | no | yes | yes | no\nAssert `amountCents === 1000` | pending | no | yes | no | no\nAssert `currency === \"USD\"` | pending | no | yes | no | no\nAssert no extra keys (`toEqual` on whole object) | pending | no | yes | no | no\n\n- A) Full receipt equality: `expect(receipt).toEqual({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" })`. Effort S. Risk low. Pros: pins all three mapped fields and shape; matches the plan's own stated contract verbatim; catches amount/currency mix-ups (the expensive receipt bugs). Cons: fails if the receipt legitimately gains a field later (one-line update). Coverage 10/10.\n- B) chargeId only: Effort S. Risk medium. Pros: proves Stripe id is plumbed through. Cons: amount and currency, the fields customers actually read, remain unguarded. Coverage 7/10.\n- C) Truthy only (as planned): Effort S. Risk high. Pros: cannot false-fail. Cons: `{}` passes; `{ amountCents: 100000 }` passes; it is a smoke test, not contract coverage, and the plan's section title promises contract coverage. Coverage 3/10.\n\n### D2 comparison \u2014 Test 2 retry-contract assertions\nCommitment | Source/approval or pending | Current | A | B | C\n---|---|---|---|---|---\nArrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses | plan, approved | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAssert rejects with `PaymentUnavailable` (error class, not message) | plan | yes | yes | yes | yes\nAssert Stripe charge mock called exactly 2 times | pending | no | yes | yes | no\nAssert virtual sleeper recorded exactly `[100]` ms | pending | no | yes | no | no\n\n- A) Rejection + attempt count + backoff record. Effort S. Risk low. Pros: pins `max_retries=1` semantics (2 attempts, not 1 or 3) and the 100 ms policy; a third call past the two queued 502s becomes a hard failure instead of undefined mock behavior; uses tooling the factory already wires in. Cons: two more assert lines; a deliberate backoff policy change needs a test edit (that is the point). Coverage 10/10.\n- B) Rejection + attempt count only. Effort S. Risk medium. Pros: catches retry-count regressions (the double-charge class). Cons: backoff duration silently drifts to 0 ms or 10 s. Coverage 7/10.\n- C) Rejection only (as planned). Effort S. Risk high. Pros: shortest. Cons: passes if the code never retries, retries forever until the mock runs dry, or sleeps for real; the plan's own paragraph defining the retry contract goes untested. Coverage 3/10.\n",
      "savedPlanSha256": "00c1585cb9e75241ac1e858b1559604310940df19e19fe794fc94ad8b5b560b0",
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-XSSRdL/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.",
      "seedSha256": "d10eb7533195ba4709a24d5b02ac543f88375680cd541c42200f177992a5b6a6",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:41.580Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01LnmAupSVQeSfo7fgz1737T",
          "filePath": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-e9l650n8/gstack-paid-shard-YDSAa0/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-XSSRdL/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T12:36:30.091Z",
          "savedPlanSha256": "00c1585cb9e75241ac1e858b1559604310940df19e19fe794fc94ad8b5b560b0"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "originalOutcomes": "All three retained calls threw the unsupported-current-decision guard in their actual paid attempt; these free replays do not rejudge those outcomes.",
  "noThinkingOrSignatures": true
}