gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-mode-posture-ad.json

{
  "provenance": {
    "run": "source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1",
    "sourceHead": "c943a0c30e901a97957846b0c5e53c949d76ceb4",
    "retention": "Exact public native AUQ request/reply blocks and pre-selection public text only; no hidden reasoning or stdout substitutes. Both actual first attempts failed; no historical paid pass is claimed."
  },
  "cases": [
    {
      "mode": "HOLD SCOPE",
      "attempt": 1,
      "process": {
        "pid": 925998,
        "startTicks": "596177",
        "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
        "config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-925944-iQAwYg/with-skills/.claude",
        "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7"
      },
      "native": {
        "path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1/focused-evidence/blobs/a9c5dff6992f426a51b0a933644f4baadebfd8b94c69cb6eab7dd0968fdb63db/current.jsonl",
        "sha256": "042f22992b22471876f59048c748107a008883cc56a16d222a063a40019a9d23",
        "bytes": 546523
      },
      "actualFailure": {
        "state": "failed",
        "at": "2026-09-09T17:44:07.645Z"
      },
      "selectedAt": 1788975606604,
      "modeToolUseId": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB",
      "decisionToolUseId": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL",
      "records": [
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:39:51.863Z",
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "text",
                "text": "Approach B is locked. Next is mode selection."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:04.532Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB",
                "name": "AskUserQuestion",
                "input": {
                  "questions": [
                    {
                      "header": "Review mode",
                      "question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.",
                      "options": [
                        {
                          "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                          "description": "\u2705 Plan scope is the baseline and gets the full rigor pass; every extra is an individual yes/defer/skip. \u2705 Neutral pitches with effort and risk on each, so you cherry-pick without pressure. \u274c Adds 5-6 short decision prompts before the deep review starts."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                          "description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal first, then break it into opt-in proposals. \u2705 Best if you suspect the plan is under-ambitious for what the team needs. \u274c Enthusiastic recommendations bias toward more scope, which risks the two-week pilot date."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                          "description": "\u2705 Zero scope drift; the four approach bullets are exactly what ships. \u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of the written plan. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like a default view go unmentioned until someone asks post-pilot."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                          "description": "\u2705 Ships the absolute minimum that stops filter rebuilding, possibly just last-filter memory. \u2705 Fastest to pilot. \u274c Conflicts with the approach B schema you just chose; would mean reopening D4."
                        }
                      ],
                      "multiSelect": false
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:06.685Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.\"=\"HOLD SCOPE\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_01WoCBKG1toNXrQ1yDnw4RLB"
              }
            ]
          },
          "toolUseResult": {
            "questions": [
              {
                "question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.",
                "header": "Review mode",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                    "description": "\u2705 Plan scope is the baseline and gets the full rigor pass; every extra is an individual yes/defer/skip. \u2705 Neutral pitches with effort and risk on each, so you cherry-pick without pressure. \u274c Adds 5-6 short decision prompts before the deep review starts."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                    "description": "\u2705 I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal first, then break it into opt-in proposals. \u2705 Best if you suspect the plan is under-ambitious for what the team needs. \u274c Enthusiastic recommendations bias toward more scope, which risks the two-week pilot date."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                    "description": "\u2705 Zero scope drift; the four approach bullets are exactly what ships. \u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of the written plan. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like a default view go unmentioned until someone asks post-pilot."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                    "description": "\u2705 Ships the absolute minimum that stops filter rebuilding, possibly just last-filter memory. \u2705 Fastest to pilot. \u274c Conflicts with the approach B schema you just chose; would mean reopening D4."
                  }
                ],
                "multiSelect": false
              }
            ],
            "answers": {
              "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main, approach B locked. ELI10: this decides how ambitious I am allowed to be. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral and you opt in to each piece. Selective means the plan is the baseline and I show you extras one at a time to cherry-pick. Hold means no extras, just maximum rigor on what is written. Reduction means I cut it to the bone. Stakes if wrong: too ambitious delays a two-week pilot; too narrow and we re-review in a month. Recommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, and the landscape check turned up 5-6 small adjacent wins (default view, last-filter memory, deep links) that deserve a yes/no each rather than a blanket decision. Note: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score. Net: how many extra decisions you want to make vs how much you trust the 15-line plan as the full scope.": "HOLD SCOPE"
            },
            "annotations": {}
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:49.613Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL",
                "name": "AskUserQuestion",
                "input": {
                  "questions": [
                    {
                      "header": "B extras",
                      "question": "D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.",
                      "options": [
                        {
                          "label": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)",
                          "description": "\u2705 Scope matches the plan's four bullets exactly; member prefs table is untouched by this change. \u2705 All three are additive later with zero schema change thanks to the B table shape. \u274c Reopening the project starts unfiltered every time, so the 'recreate filters' pain is only half-solved until the default view lands."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "Keep all three",
                          "description": "\u2705 Ships the version of B you approved in D4 with no trimming. \u2705 Default view directly attacks the stated pain: members land on their filters without a click. \u274c Adds member-prefs writes and URL-param handling, ~3 extra files, and is scope beyond the written plan under a HOLD SCOPE review."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "Keep deep links only",
                          "description": "\u2705 ?view=<id> is a URL param read on the existing page; smallest of the three, no new table writes. \u2705 Lets members bookmark or paste a view into chat without a sharing feature. \u274c Default view and last-used are deferred, so the open-project-see-my-filters moment still needs one click."
                        }
                      ],
                      "multiSelect": false
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "sessionId": "14add4a4-0e7b-4791-814b-54a396bad1b7",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-bbDT0N",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:51.783Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.\"=\"Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_018XtfbUM4WFW8kvaEHBMGnL"
              }
            ]
          },
          "toolUseResult": {
            "questions": [
              {
                "question": "D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.",
                "header": "B extras",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "label": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)",
                    "description": "\u2705 Scope matches the plan's four bullets exactly; member prefs table is untouched by this change. \u2705 All three are additive later with zero schema change thanks to the B table shape. \u274c Reopening the project starts unfiltered every time, so the 'recreate filters' pain is only half-solved until the default view lands."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "Keep all three",
                    "description": "\u2705 Ships the version of B you approved in D4 with no trimming. \u2705 Default view directly attacks the stated pain: members land on their filters without a click. \u274c Adds member-prefs writes and URL-param handling, ~3 extra files, and is scope beyond the written plan under a HOLD SCOPE review."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "Keep deep links only",
                    "description": "\u2705 ?view=<id> is a URL param read on the existing page; smallest of the three, no new table writes. \u2705 Lets members bookmark or paste a view into chat without a sharing feature. \u274c Default view and last-used are deferred, so the open-project-see-my-filters moment still needs one click."
                  }
                ],
                "multiSelect": false
              }
            ],
            "answers": {
              "D6 \u2014 Under HOLD SCOPE, keep or defer the three approach-B conveniences that are not in the plan text (per-member default view, last-used filter memory, ?view= deep links)? Project/branch/task: PLAN.md 'Add saved project views' on main. ELI10: you picked approach B for its future-proof schema. B also bundled three small UX niceties that the 15-line plan never asked for. HOLD SCOPE says the written scope is the baseline, so I have to surface these as deferrable rather than silently keep them. The schema stays either way. Stakes if wrong: keeping them adds ~3 files and touches member prefs, a table this plan otherwise never touches; deferring them means a saved view is only reachable via the picker and every session opens unfiltered. Recommendation: B (defer all three) because HOLD SCOPE means the plan text is the contract and these are pure additions, not repairs to meet a stated invariant. Completeness: A=10/10 for the approved approach, B=10/10 for the written plan, C=8/10. Net: honoring the plan as written vs honoring the approach as approved.": "Defer all three to TODOS (recommended)"
            },
            "annotations": {}
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "mode": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
      "attempt": 1,
      "process": {
        "pid": 925999,
        "startTicks": "596177",
        "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
        "config": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-hermetic-925944-iQAwYg/with-skills/.claude",
        "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68"
      },
      "native": {
        "path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/source-ad-focused-diagnostic-20260909-v1/focused-evidence/blobs/d313936f3927d34dd5a2a84e79fc95f27c6ca6c5731d065aed19a241a162c11c/current.jsonl",
        "sha256": "032941aa6b614b73adecaea56f50850d6004a7029fd9e3443761ab5839feabc3",
        "bytes": 427819
      },
      "actualFailure": {
        "state": "failed",
        "at": "2026-09-09T17:44:50.822Z"
      },
      "selectedAt": 1788975649757,
      "modeToolUseId": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8",
      "decisionToolUseId": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ",
      "records": [
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:21.073Z",
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "text",
                "text": "Approach B is approved. Logging it as a durable architecture decision, then mode selection."
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:48.497Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8",
                "name": "AskUserQuestion",
                "input": {
                  "questions": [
                    {
                      "question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.",
                      "header": "Mode",
                      "multiSelect": false,
                      "options": [
                        {
                          "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                          "description": "\u2705 Baseline scope held and reviewed at full rigor; every expansion shown individually with effort and risk, neutral recommendation. \u2705 You cherry-pick; rejected items go to NOT in scope. \u274c Five or six extra decisions before the deep review begins."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                          "description": "\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says. \u2705 No expansion questions at all; maximum rigor on failure modes, tests, observability. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like default view or shared views are not surfaced."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                          "description": "\u2705 Ten-x vision and platonic ideal described first, then each proposal offered with an enthusiastic recommendation. \u2705 Best when this feature is meant to become a platform for dashboards and notifications. \u274c Pilot scope grows; more decisions and more implementation before first user feedback."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                          "description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum that ships value: save, list, apply, delete. \u2705 Fastest to a pilot. \u274c Conflicts with approach B you just chose; drift handling and usage tracking would be cut and the pilot becomes unmeasurable."
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:40:49.795Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_01LxBLkEdbM1HeqA1savUoC8"
              }
            ]
          },
          "toolUseResult": {
            "questions": [
              {
                "question": "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.",
                "header": "Mode",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                    "description": "\u2705 Baseline scope held and reviewed at full rigor; every expansion shown individually with effort and risk, neutral recommendation. \u2705 You cherry-pick; rejected items go to NOT in scope. \u274c Five or six extra decisions before the deep review begins."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                    "description": "\u2705 Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says. \u2705 No expansion questions at all; maximum rigor on failure modes, tests, observability. \u274c Cheap adjacent wins like default view or shared views are not surfaced."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                    "description": "\u2705 Ten-x vision and platonic ideal described first, then each proposal offered with an enthusiastic recommendation. \u2705 Best when this feature is meant to become a platform for dashboards and notifications. \u274c Pilot scope grows; more decisions and more implementation before first user feedback."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                    "description": "\u2705 Strips to the minimum that ships value: save, list, apply, delete. \u2705 Fastest to a pilot. \u274c Conflicts with approach B you just chose; drift handling and usage tracking would be cut and the pilot becomes unmeasurable."
                  }
                ],
                "multiSelect": false
              }
            ],
            "answers": {
              "D5 \u2014 Which review posture should I take for the rest of this review?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved project views; approach B (validated, versioned view) is locked.\nELI10: The approach is decided. Now I need to know how ambitious to be about scope. I can hold exactly what PLAN.md asks for and make it bulletproof, or also surface adjacent ideas (shared views, default view, view-as-link) one at a time for you to accept or reject, or dream big and push every expansion, or cut the plan down to the bare minimum. Whatever you choose, no scope is added or removed without you saying yes to each item.\nStakes if we pick wrong: hold too tight and you ship a feature that needs a second migration in a month; expand too far and a two-week pilot turns into a quarter.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list, the baseline scope is sound, and approach B already leaves cheap one-flag expansions on the table that you should see before deciding.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: how many adjacent opportunities you want to see before the deep review, from none to all.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
            },
            "annotations": {}
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "assistant",
          "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:41:44.450Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "assistant",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_use",
                "id": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ",
                "name": "AskUserQuestion",
                "input": {
                  "questions": [
                    {
                      "question": "D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.",
                      "header": "E1 shared",
                      "multiSelect": false,
                      "options": [
                        {
                          "label": "A) Add to scope (recommended)",
                          "description": "human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. \u2705 Leads save a view once and the whole project sees it; the core pain disappears for everyone, not one person. \u2705 Visibility column and soft delete already exist under approach B, so no migration later. \u274c Doubles the authorization matrix: owner vs member vs non-member on read, update, delete, and apply, each needing tests."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
                          "description": "\u2705 Pilot stays single-player and simpler to measure. \u2705 Visibility column ships now so the follow-up is endpoints and UI only. \u274c The most common team request lands in the backlog on day one."
                        },
                        {
                          "label": "C) Skip",
                          "description": "\u2705 Smallest authorization surface possible. \u2705 Nothing to explain about who can see what. \u274c Contradicts the 10x vision you just chose; sharing would need a fresh design later."
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "caller": {
                  "type": "direct"
                }
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        {
          "type": "user",
          "sessionId": "e59fb50d-6564-4361-a79f-05851e530a68",
          "cwd": "/tmp/gstack-paid-shard-7L31S7/tmp/gstack-plan-count-rY0De7",
          "timestamp": "2026-09-09T17:41:45.015Z",
          "isSidechain": false,
          "message": {
            "role": "user",
            "content": [
              {
                "type": "tool_result",
                "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.\"=\"A) Add to scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
                "tool_use_id": "toolu_01QwSxVav6eeKorjQvU5CxvZ"
              }
            ]
          },
          "toolUseResult": {
            "questions": [
              {
                "question": "D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.",
                "header": "E1 shared",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "label": "A) Add to scope (recommended)",
                    "description": "human ~2 days / CC ~30 min. \u2705 Leads save a view once and the whole project sees it; the core pain disappears for everyone, not one person. \u2705 Visibility column and soft delete already exist under approach B, so no migration later. \u274c Doubles the authorization matrix: owner vs member vs non-member on read, update, delete, and apply, each needing tests."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
                    "description": "\u2705 Pilot stays single-player and simpler to measure. \u2705 Visibility column ships now so the follow-up is endpoints and UI only. \u274c The most common team request lands in the backlog on day one."
                  },
                  {
                    "label": "C) Skip",
                    "description": "\u2705 Smallest authorization surface possible. \u2705 Nothing to explain about who can see what. \u274c Contradicts the 10x vision you just chose; sharing would need a fresh design later."
                  }
                ],
                "multiSelect": false
              }
            ],
            "answers": {
              "D6 \u2014 E1: Add project-shared views to this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main branch, saved views under approach B, SCOPE EXPANSION mode.\nELI10: Right now every saved view is private to the member who made it. Shared views let a member flip a view to \"visible to this project\" so teammates see and apply it from the same picker. Only the owner (or a project admin) can edit or delete it; everyone else gets a read-only copy they can \"Save as mine\". Approach B already has the visibility column, so this is the endpoint authorization rules, the picker section, and the ownership tests.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the team keeps recreating the lead's filters by hand, which is the exact pain the plan set out to remove, just moved one person over. Add it and the authorization surface doubles, which is the riskiest part of the feature.\nRecommendation: A because this is the single expansion that turns a personal shortcut into a team tool, and the column already exists; the real cost is tests, which CC makes cheap.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=7/10\nNet: doubled authorization surface now vs the feature staying single-player and needing a second launch later.": "A) Add to scope (recommended)"
            },
            "annotations": {}
          }
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}