gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-expansion-pause-6714.json

{
  "provenance": {
    "source": "67147822f55b911c033617f759dc472d0d348e72",
    "actualOutcome": "first attempt failed; configured retry preserved separately",
    "observationSha256": "c6572ec1b584b17c096e20f2acb93de42d20a55433d922d6e64e2a1b4f4e01fc",
    "publicProjectionSha256": "eed4680a9487bb1b4a38cc700ba0f30d721bbf312432b5d962b5247e84453525",
    "envelopes": "Actual public native requests, answer values, session/request identities and request/reply timestamps. No synthetic timing."
  },
  "selectedAt": 1789475597256,
  "calls": [
    {
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a project task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build a bigger version, keep the plan exactly as written and stress-test it, or cut it to the smallest useful core. This is an enhancement to an existing task list (roughly 9\u201312 changed files, estimated), not a greenfield build or a bug fix. Nothing about the plan's approach changes by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question later.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too much expansion and a small feature grows a tail of half-wanted extras; too little and you ship personal-only views and re-discover the sharing and deleted-filter-reference problems in production.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a solid enhancement, but the landscape check surfaced a few adjacent options (shared views, remember-last-state, canonical filter serialization) worth a neutral look before locking scope.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on scope, in either direction, before the 11-section deep review.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
              "description": "\u2705 Current scope gets the full rigor pass; each adjacent idea is offered neutrally as add / defer / skip\n\u2705 You choose per item; rejected ideas land in an explicit NOT-in-scope list\n\u274c More questions than HOLD SCOPE; a handful of extra decisions before the deep review"
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
              "description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal, then recommend expansions enthusiastically\n\u2705 Best if you want views to become a platform piece (shared, default, deep-linked) now\n\u274c Bigger diff, longer pilot, more surface to secure and test on a feature whose base pain is small"
            },
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
              "description": "\u2705 Scope stays exactly as written; maximum rigor on failures, edge cases, error paths, tests\n\u2705 Fastest path to a review report; no scope questions beyond defer/keep checks\n\u274c Sharing, remember-last-state, and filter-shape questions get noted, not offered as scope"
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
              "description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum core (e.g. remember last filter state, or create+list only)\n\u2705 Smallest diff, quickest pilot signal on whether members even want persistence\n\u274c Named views and update/delete may get cut; you re-plan them later if the pilot says yes"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\" (per-member named filter+sort presets on a project task list).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build a bigger version, keep the plan exactly as written and stress-test it, or cut it to the smallest useful core. This is an enhancement to an existing task list (roughly 9\u201312 changed files, estimated), not a greenfield build or a bug fix. Nothing about the plan's approach changes by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question later.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too much expansion and a small feature grows a tail of half-wanted extras; too little and you ship personal-only views and re-discover the sharing and deleted-filter-reference problems in production.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a solid enhancement, but the landscape check surfaced a few adjacent options (shared views, remember-last-state, canonical filter serialization) worth a neutral look before locking scope.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on scope, in either direction, before the 11-section deep review.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.286Z"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D4.1 \u2014 E1: Store views using the task list's existing filter/sort serialization?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, SCOPE EXPANSION, proposal 1 of 6.\nELI10: Your task list already turns filters and sort into some encoded shape (usually the URL query string). A saved view should persist exactly that shape, not a new hand-rolled JSON schema. Then saved views, URLs, and shared links all speak one language, and when you add a new filter next quarter, old views keep working without a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two filter encodings drift apart; every new filter needs a stored-view migration; deep links (E2) and shared views (E3) need translation code.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the cheapest item here (human ~0.5 d / CC ~15 min) and it is the foundation E2\u2013E4 stand on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10, D=n/a\nNet: one canonical filter language now vs. a second schema you maintain forever.",
          "header": "E1 serialize",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
              "description": "\u2705 One filter encoding shared by URL, saved views, and future shared links; new filters need no view migration\n\u2705 Round-trip test (encode \u2192 save \u2192 load \u2192 decode) becomes the single test that proves views work\n\u274c Requires locating and possibly tidying the existing serializer before the table schema is final"
            },
            {
              "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
              "description": "\u2705 Base plan proceeds with whatever column shape is fastest today\n\u2705 Decision recorded so a later pass can converge the encodings\n\u274c Stored views written in the interim need a migration when you converge later"
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip",
              "description": "\u2705 No constraint on the saved_views column design\n\u2705 Zero coupling to the task list's URL handling\n\u274c Two filter schemas from day one; E2/E3 become translation projects instead of near-free"
            },
            {
              "label": "Hold (stop chain, discuss)",
              "description": "\u2705 Pauses the expansion questions so we can talk this one through first\n\u2705 Nothing is decided until you say so\n\u274c Delays the remaining five proposals and the deep review"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D4.1 \u2014 E1: Store views using the task list's existing filter/sort serialization?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, SCOPE EXPANSION, proposal 1 of 6.\nELI10: Your task list already turns filters and sort into some encoded shape (usually the URL query string). A saved view should persist exactly that shape, not a new hand-rolled JSON schema. Then saved views, URLs, and shared links all speak one language, and when you add a new filter next quarter, old views keep working without a migration.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two filter encodings drift apart; every new filter needs a stored-view migration; deep links (E2) and shared views (E3) need translation code.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the cheapest item here (human ~0.5 d / CC ~15 min) and it is the foundation E2\u2013E4 stand on.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=5/10, C=3/10, D=n/a\nNet: one canonical filter language now vs. a second schema you maintain forever.": "Add to scope (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:34:22.430Z"
    }
  ],
  "events": [
    {
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.090Z"
    },
    {
      "kind": "result",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01GWxSoGMRSKj1UNJaeqjMSM",
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:33:17.286Z",
      "isError": false
    },
    {
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:34:20.084Z"
    },
    {
      "kind": "result",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01R9LXiJmwEhkF4jcDDxTumZ",
      "sessionId": "ff3497af-75fa-410a-916e-083dc44167d2",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T12:34:22.430Z",
      "isError": false
    }
  ],
  "retry": {
    "selectedAt": 1789476022644,
    "mode": {
      "sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Ac8HqKbpPxpwqdA4UvaJdd",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? (ledger row R1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, PLAN.md: saved project views.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and ask you about each. Selective means I keep your scope, harden it, and offer each add-on (like shared views, stale-filter handling) as a separate yes/no. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I propose cuts to reach a minimum core.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week pilot balloons into a platform project; too tight and the schema gets locked into private-only views that are painful to open up later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement (est. 8-12 files) with two cheap structural hedges worth an explicit yes/no, and the pilot argues against a cathedral.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I am allowed to tempt you versus how tightly I guard the pilot scope.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
              "description": "\u2705 Current scope gets bulletproofed first: access rules, error paths, tests, observability. \u2705 Each add-on (shared views, stale-filter handling, default view) is offered separately; you accept, defer, or skip. \u274c More questions than HOLD; a few extra decisions before the deep review starts."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
              "description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version: shared and default views, view analytics, URL-shareable state. \u2705 Best if saved views are the seed of a larger task-list platform. \u274c Pulls hard against a two-week pilot; risks building features the pilot cannot measure."
            },
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
              "description": "\u2705 Exactly the four bullets in PLAN.md, traced for every failure and edge case. \u2705 Fastest path to a reviewed, shippable pilot. \u274c The visibility-column hedge and stale-filter handling are only raised as concerns, not offered as scope; private-only schema may need a migration later."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
              "description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum: maybe save + reopen only, no update or picker polish. \u2705 Lowest cost to learn whether anyone reuses views. \u274c Plan is already small; cuts here would mostly remove the update/delete endpoints that users expect on any saved object."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 \u2014 Which review mode should govern this plan? (ledger row R1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, PLAN.md: saved project views.\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Expansion means I pitch bigger versions and ask you about each. Selective means I keep your scope, harden it, and offer each add-on (like shared views, stale-filter handling) as a separate yes/no. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I propose cuts to reach a minimum core.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too expansive and a two-week pilot balloons into a platform project; too tight and the schema gets locked into private-only views that are painful to open up later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement (est. 8-12 files) with two cheap structural hedges worth an explicit yes/no, and the pilot argues against a cathedral.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how much I am allowed to tempt you versus how tightly I guard the pilot scope.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:40:22.673Z"
    },
    "pacing": {
      "sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Nrp54fPik5GJq9GHC4NhCR",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3.0 \u2014 Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How should I walk them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: The proposals are E1 project-shared views, E2 default views, E3 stale-filter handling, E4 URL-addressable views, E5 pilot instrumentation, E6 dirty-state Update/Save-as-new, E7 delight pack (rename, duplicate, save nudge, shortcut, empty state, page title). Each is a separate scope call. I can ask one question per item (7 questions, each Add / Defer / Skip / Hold), or first propose a smaller set, or batch them into groups. Dependencies: E2's project default needs E1; E4 cross-member links need E1; E5 is what makes the pilot metric real for everything else.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Per-item gives you full control at the cost of 7 prompts; batching is faster but risks lumping unrelated decisions together.\nRecommendation: A because every proposal is independently shippable and this mode exists to let you weigh each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: decision precision versus prompt count.",
          "header": "Chain shape",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Full per-item split (recommended)",
              "description": "\u2705 Seven D3.k questions, one per proposal, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D3.final to confirm the set. \u2705 No proposal is dropped or merged without your say. \u274c Seven prompts before the deep review begins."
            },
            {
              "label": "Narrow first",
              "description": "\u2705 I propose a smaller candidate set (my pick: E1, E3, E5) and you confirm the cut before per-item questions. \u2705 Fewer prompts if you agree with the narrowing. \u274c You see my shortlist before the full menu; less aligned with expansion posture."
            },
            {
              "label": "Batch into two groups",
              "description": "\u2705 Two multi-select questions: structural (E1-E4) and polish/observability (E5-E7). \u2705 Fast: two prompts. \u274c Multi-select flattens Add vs Defer into yes/no; deferrals need a follow-up."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3.0 \u2014 Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How should I walk them?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: The proposals are E1 project-shared views, E2 default views, E3 stale-filter handling, E4 URL-addressable views, E5 pilot instrumentation, E6 dirty-state Update/Save-as-new, E7 delight pack (rename, duplicate, save nudge, shortcut, empty state, page title). Each is a separate scope call. I can ask one question per item (7 questions, each Add / Defer / Skip / Hold), or first propose a smaller set, or batch them into groups. Dependencies: E2's project default needs E1; E4 cross-member links need E1; E5 is what makes the pilot metric real for everything else.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Per-item gives you full control at the cost of 7 prompts; batching is faster but risks lumping unrelated decisions together.\nRecommendation: A because every proposal is independently shippable and this mode exists to let you weigh each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: decision precision versus prompt count.": "Full per-item split (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T12:42:10.466Z"
    },
    "pendingProposal": {
      "sessionId": "f68a6786-25d9-429d-b7f7-d2086fd16d59",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_014QQHwT6o3sWWqWj9X7ejEs",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3.1 \u2014 E1: Project-shared views (ledger row S1)\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-w6cXCj on main, saved project views.\nELI10: Today the plan saves a view for one member only. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private or project) and a share toggle, so a teammate's saved view shows up in my picker. Fixes the stated pain once per team instead of once per member. Owner keeps edit/delete; others can open and duplicate. Even if you defer the sharing UI, adding the column now (private default) avoids an ownership migration later. Effort: human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. Risk: medium, it is a new permission surface that must reuse the existing project-membership check. E2's project default and E4's cross-member links depend on it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the schema locks in private-only; add it and the plan gains a permissions test matrix.\nRecommendation: Add because the goal sentence is about the team, and the structural cost is one column plus one authorization branch.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: team-wide fix now versus a smaller permission surface for the pilot.",
          "header": "E1 shared",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
              "description": "\u2705 Teammates reuse each other's views; the pain is fixed once per project. \u2705 Column + owner-only mutation rule land together with their permission tests. \u274c Adds a permission matrix (owner, member, non-member) to test and a share toggle to design."
            },
            {
              "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
              "description": "\u2705 Pilot stays private-only and smaller. \u2705 Deferral recorded with context so the follow-up starts warm. \u274c Without the column now, sharing later means a data migration; I will ask separately whether to add the column alone."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip entirely",
              "description": "\u2705 Smallest possible schema and permission surface. \u2705 Nothing to design beyond the original four bullets. \u274c Orphans E2 project default and E4 cross-member links; goes to NOT in scope."
            },
            {
              "label": "Hold, discuss first",
              "description": "\u2705 Stops the chain so we can talk through the permission model before deciding. \u2705 No disposition recorded until you say continue. \u274c Delays the remaining six proposals."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": false,
      "failed": false,
      "source": "pre_tool_use"
    },
    "limit": "Captured mode/pacing ACKs and pending unacknowledged proposal. Raw request timestamps were no longer available; synthetic test envelopes are not E2E acceptance."
  }
}