gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-expansion-disposition-77.json

{
  "source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
  "selectionStartedAt": 1789492460129,
  "selected": {
    "sessionId": "10bb7da8-3065-4a5d-8a8f-41f156b3cca5",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
    "questions": [
      {
        "question": "D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.",
        "header": "Review mode",
        "multiSelect": false,
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
            "description": "✅ Hold the current scope and make it bulletproof, then offer 5-6 individually selectable add-ons (shared views, default view, deep links) with effort and risk. ✅ You decide each one; rejected items land in NOT in scope. ❌ Slightly longer review because each add-on is its own question."
          },
          {
            "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
            "description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability gap. ✅ Fastest path to an implementable plan for the two-week pilot. ❌ The shared-views premise question gets noted but not offered, so the team-level pain may stay unsolved."
          },
          {
            "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
            "description": "✅ Envision the 10x version: views as first-class shareable objects, defaults, deep links, digests. ✅ Best 12-month architecture up front. ❌ Highest risk of over-building before the pilot proves anyone reuses views at all."
          },
          {
            "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
            "description": "✅ Strip to the minimum that proves reuse: maybe create + list + apply only, no update endpoint. ✅ Shortest pilot lead time. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts here risk shipping something too thin to measure."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:14:20.164Z"
  },
  "proposal": {
    "sessionId": "10bb7da8-3065-4a5d-8a8f-41f156b3cca5",
    "toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
    "questions": [
      {
        "question": "D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.",
        "header": "P1 shared",
        "multiSelect": false,
        "options": [
          {
            "label": "A) Add to this plan (recommended)",
            "description": "✅ One save removes the filter-rebuilding work for every project member, not just the saver. ✅ Picker groups private then project views with creator shown; owner-only update/delete. ❌ Adds an authorization branch that needs its own tests (non-owner update, non-member read, admin override)."
          },
          {
            "label": "B) Defer to TODOS.md",
            "description": "✅ Keeps the pilot to the smallest surface and lets reuse data justify sharing later. ✅ Still worth adding the nullable visibility column now to avoid a later backfill. ❌ Team-level pain persists through the pilot, so the reuse metric may look weak for the wrong reason."
          },
          {
            "label": "C) Skip entirely",
            "description": "✅ Simplest data model and no sharing authz at all. ✅ Fastest path to shipping exactly what PLAN.md says. ❌ Locks the table into per-member ownership; adding sharing later means a migration plus backfill."
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "answered": true,
    "failed": false,
    "answers": {
      "D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.": "A) Add to this plan (recommended)"
    },
    "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
    "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:16:00.396Z"
  },
  "eventTimes": [
    {
      "kind": "use",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:14:18.988Z"
    },
    {
      "kind": "result",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:14:20.164Z"
    },
    {
      "kind": "use",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:15:58.212Z"
    },
    {
      "kind": "result",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:16:00.396Z"
    }
  ],
  "provenance": {
    "projection": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/public-retention/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492297772-BPfUry/latest-public-transcript.json",
    "sha256": "4367d27895f46a03d47f5b3cc7360db01e07ff83287f51e7838e98f6bc3ca533",
    "case": "mode \"SCOPE EXPANSION\" routes to its distinctive posture",
    "firstAttemptStatus": "failed",
    "actualPassCredit": 0
  },
  "resultContentById": {
    "toolu_011LRMEtwDvfFastSfoYTxEG": "Your questions have been answered: \"D1 — Which review mode should I apply to the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, reviewing PLAN.md (saved views for the project task list).\nELI10: The review can push this plan in four directions: dream bigger, keep the plan but offer a few add-ons you can pick from, keep the plan exactly and hunt for every way it breaks, or shrink it to the bare minimum. The plan is an enhancement to an existing task list with an estimated 8-12 changed files, one new table, and new UI. There is also a real premise question (per-member views vs project-shared views) that a mode with room for cherry-picking can put in front of you without forcing it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too ambitious and the pilot slips or grows a sharing model nobody asked for; too narrow and the team keeps recreating the same filters because views can't be shared.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement under the 15-file threshold with one strong expansion candidate (shared views) that deserves a yes/no from you, not a default.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much appetite you have for adding scope vs hardening exactly what's written.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
    "toolu_01UExNnc9avZ81S39cVANhzn": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2.1 — P1: Project-shared views. Add, defer, or skip?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-rTDHRG on main, expanding the saved views plan (SCOPE EXPANSION, D1).\nELI10: Right now a saved view belongs to one member, so if five people want \"Blocked this sprint\" all five build it. P1 adds a visibility switch (private or project) so one person saves it and the whole project sees it in the picker. Only the owner (and project admins, if that role exists) can edit or delete a shared view. Members still only see tasks they already have access to; sharing a view never widens task visibility. This is the change that turns the feature from a personal convenience into the thing that actually ends the team recreating filters.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skip it and the stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is solved once per member instead of once per team; add it carelessly and you get an authorization surface where someone edits or deletes a teammate's view.\nRecommendation: A) Add because the plan's own goal is team-level, the cost is one enum column plus one authz branch (human ~2 days / CC ~45 min), and doing it now avoids a migration and backfill later.\nCompleteness: A=10/10 (solves the team pain, owner-only mutation, access rules preserved), B=6/10 (personal views ship, team pain remains until a later migration), C=5/10 (permanently per-member).\nNet: a medium-effort authz surface now vs solving the stated problem only one member at a time.\"=\"A) Add to this plan (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind."
  },
  "namedAddProposal": {
    "source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
    "attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789499702475-lfIixD",
    "originalState": "failed",
    "selectionStartedAt": 1789499860892,
    "selected": {
      "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
              "description": "✅ Current scope gets the full failure-path and test rigor of HOLD first. ✅ Each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, stale-filter handling) is offered separately with effort and risk; you pick. ❌ More questions than HOLD; a few extra minutes of decisions."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
              "description": "✅ I build the 10x vision (private + shared views, defaults, deep links, usage metrics) and recommend enthusiastically. ✅ Best chance of avoiding a schema migration when shared views arrive. ❌ Risk of overshooting a two-week pilot; more surface to test before anyone has used it."
            },
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
              "description": "✅ Scope stays exactly as PLAN.md; maximum rigor on errors, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fastest path to the pilot with no new decisions about features. ❌ The team-wide vs per-member premise question goes unasked; shared views later means a migration."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
              "description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that stops filter rebuilding (possibly URL-encoded filters + a save button, no update endpoint). ✅ Smallest diff, fastest pilot signal. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts may remove things (update, delete) users expect on day one."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:17:40.926Z"
    },
    "proposal": {
      "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.",
          "header": "E1 shared",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
              "description": "✅ Solves the team-wide pain directly: one person builds a view, everyone reuses it. ✅ Schema is right from day one; no migration when sharing is requested. ❌ Adds an edit/delete permission rule and its tests to the pilot scope."
            },
            {
              "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
              "description": "✅ Pilot ships with the smaller per-member scope and a written follow-up. ✅ Two-week pilot data can confirm whether sharing is actually requested. ❌ Schema stays member-only; adding sharing later is a migration plus backfill."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip",
              "description": "✅ Smallest possible scope; no permissions surface beyond project membership. ✅ Zero new decisions about who can edit whose view. ❌ Every member rebuilds the same shared filters; the plan's goal is only partially met."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:18:33.573Z"
    },
    "events": [
      {
        "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:17:39.645Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "input": {
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.",
              "header": "Review mode",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Current scope gets the full failure-path and test rigor of HOLD first. ✅ Each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, stale-filter handling) is offered separately with effort and risk; you pick. ❌ More questions than HOLD; a few extra minutes of decisions."
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                  "description": "✅ I build the 10x vision (private + shared views, defaults, deep links, usage metrics) and recommend enthusiastically. ✅ Best chance of avoiding a schema migration when shared views arrive. ❌ Risk of overshooting a two-week pilot; more surface to test before anyone has used it."
                },
                {
                  "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                  "description": "✅ Scope stays exactly as PLAN.md; maximum rigor on errors, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fastest path to the pilot with no new decisions about features. ❌ The team-wide vs per-member premise question goes unasked; shared views later means a migration."
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                  "description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that stops filter rebuilding (possibly URL-encoded filters + a save button, no update endpoint). ✅ Smallest diff, fastest pilot signal. ❌ Plan is already small; cuts may remove things (update, delete) users expect on day one."
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "messageId": "msg_011Cf5mCN84sf7ELVtp8nbXZ",
        "requestId": "req_011Cf5mCMbow4YmTFkVPDTcg"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:17:40.926Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Tpz9fBgWazaEXoSH2tgGs7",
        "kind": "result",
        "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 — Which review mode for the saved project views plan?\nProject/branch/task: fixture repo on main; reviewing PLAN.md (saved_views table, CRUD endpoints, picker + save action).\nELI10: The plan is a solid, small enhancement: let each member save a named filter+sort combo and reopen it. The mode decides how hard I push on scope. Expansion dreams big (shared views, default view, deep links). Selective keeps your scope but offers each addition as a separate yes/no. Hold keeps scope exactly and goes deep on failure paths, tests, and observability. Reduction strips to the smallest thing that stops the filter-rebuilding pain.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too big and a two-week pilot ships late with features nobody tested; too small and the team-wide pain (everyone rebuilding the same filter) is only half solved and the schema needs a migration later.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement, ~10-13 files (estimate), and one real premise question (per-member vs shared views) deserves an explicit yes/no rather than a silent assumption.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: you are choosing how much I am allowed to tempt you with scope, not what ships; every addition still needs your explicit opt-in.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
        "isError": false
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:31.739Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "input": {
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.",
              "header": "E1 shared",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "Add to this plan's scope (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Solves the team-wide pain directly: one person builds a view, everyone reuses it. ✅ Schema is right from day one; no migration when sharing is requested. ❌ Adds an edit/delete permission rule and its tests to the pilot scope."
                },
                {
                  "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
                  "description": "✅ Pilot ships with the smaller per-member scope and a written follow-up. ✅ Two-week pilot data can confirm whether sharing is actually requested. ❌ Schema stays member-only; adding sharing later is a migration plus backfill."
                },
                {
                  "label": "Skip",
                  "description": "✅ Smallest possible scope; no permissions surface beyond project membership. ✅ Zero new decisions about who can edit whose view. ❌ Every member rebuilds the same shared filters; the plan's goal is only partially met."
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "messageId": "msg_011Cf5mGK5NQx14bRTChqi7x",
        "requestId": "req_011Cf5mGJSfaYZRNyxdAMscQ"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "ab0dfbcd-239f-4b21-bb63-84a728b50460",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:18:33.573Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_015hyeFUu842NHRPeUfpsesB",
        "kind": "result",
        "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — E1: Add project-shared views alongside private views?\nProject/branch/task: main; saved project views plan, ledger row L1 (ownership scope).\nELI10: Right now the plan saves a view for one member only. Shared views let the person who builds \"Blocked on design, by priority\" publish it to the whole project, so nobody else rebuilds it. Same table, one `visibility` column (private | project), creator owns edits, every project member can open it. This is what Linear, Jira, and GitLab all do.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Skip it and the stated team-wide pain is only solved per person; adding it later means a schema migration and a permissions retrofit. Add it and you take on a real permissions surface (who can edit/delete a shared view) before the pilot.\nRecommendation: A because the goal sentence is about the team, and a nullable-owner or visibility column costs almost nothing now and a migration later. (human: ~2 days / CC: ~20 min)\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=6/10, C=6/10\nNet: one column and one permission rule now vs. a half-solved pain and a migration in six months.\"=\"Add to this plan's scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
        "isError": false
      }
    ],
    "captureSha256": "a986662612e62a5b41d0c41f1d2201dbcf02ba776ef3370f2bb9dfd3964e82f5",
    "limitation": "Original paid retry remains failed; only the exact selected mode and completed E1 decision are retained here."
  },
  "proceduralPauseB0ca": {
    "source": "b0ca3b361f8c738fcb75192535efbe922b224989",
    "inputSha256": "7dfcec4814b83857d09a4e148decf63d25e228432cfc441e560c926f118b022b",
    "originalOutcome": "failed",
    "originalAssertion": "no posture match; continuedQuestion=true",
    "selectionBoundary": "Use one millisecond before actual mode ACK solely to authenticate the same selected mode. This is not an asserted send timestamp.",
    "selected": {
      "sessionId": "caaed41c-3102-4b87-b04c-90ffa28cc56d",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
              "description": "Hold current scope and make it bulletproof; separately offer each adjacent expansion with neutral effort and risk, you accept or reject one by one. ✅ Rigor on the planned scope plus a look at cheap wins D2 set up. ✅ Every scope change is an explicit yes from you. ❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
              "description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, enthusiastic recommendations for adjacent features. ✅ Best if you want saved views to become a platform feature now. ✅ Surfaces the most ambitious version. ❌ Risks a two-week pilot turning into a quarter of work."
            },
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
              "description": "Preserve scope exactly; maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability. ✅ Fewest questions, fastest to a shippable plan. ✅ Nothing gets added that the goal did not ask for. ❌ Cheap adjacent wins are not even considered."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
              "description": "Propose the minimum viable core and cut the rest with approval. ✅ Fastest possible pilot if the premise is uncertain. ✅ Forces the team to prove demand first. ❌ The plan is already small; cutting further likely drops the named-views goal."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T21:40:01.614Z"
    },
    "proposal": {
      "sessionId": "caaed41c-3102-4b87-b04c-90ffa28cc56d",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.",
          "header": "E1 shared",
          "multiSelect": false,
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Add to scope (recommended)",
              "description": "✅ Team members share views by name; the feature becomes a team tool, not a preference. ✅ Unlocks E2 project default view. ❌ Adds an admin-vs-member permission model and its tests to the first release."
            },
            {
              "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
              "description": "✅ Ship personal views first, learn from the pilot, add sharing next. ✅ Schema is ready so the deferral costs no migration. ❌ E2 must also be deferred; team vocabulary benefit waits."
            },
            {
              "label": "Skip",
              "description": "✅ Smallest release; no permission logic beyond ownership. ✅ Nothing to maintain for shared state. ❌ Contradicts the 10x direction and leaves the visibility column unused indefinitely."
            },
            {
              "label": "Hold (stop chain, discuss)",
              "description": "✅ Pause the ceremony to talk through the permission model first. ✅ No proposal is decided under time pressure. ❌ Remaining proposals wait until we resume."
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.": "Add to scope (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T21:41:19.255Z"
    },
    "eventTimes": [
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
        "kind": "use",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:40:00.551Z"
      },
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU",
        "kind": "result",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:40:01.614Z"
      },
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
        "kind": "use",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:41:18.860Z"
      },
      {
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb",
        "kind": "result",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T21:41:19.255Z"
      }
    ],
    "resultContentById": {
      "toolu_01Ew41JC9sghZLd2iRUQcaHU": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\", approach C approved in D2 (~12 files estimated).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for everything after this. Expansion modes go hunting for adjacent wins (shared views, default views, view URLs in notifications) and ask you about each one. Hold scope keeps exactly what is planned and spends the rigor on failure paths, tests and observability. Reduction strips the plan to the smallest core. This is an enhancement to an existing screen with a modest file count, which is the textbook case for holding scope while cherry-picking a few expansions.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and the pilot ships late with features nobody asked for; too narrow and we miss cheap wins the schema (D2) was deliberately prepared for.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the plan is a mid-size enhancement and D2 already opened doors worth a neutral look, one at a time.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much I tempt you with adjacent scope vs. how hard I lean on the plan as written.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
      "toolu_01DRxhi7FkFSDaknwywHYiBb": "Your questions have been answered: \"D4.1 — E1: Shared project views. Add to this plan's scope?\nProject/branch/task: main, PLAN.md saved views, SCOPE EXPANSION, D2 schema approved (visibility column exists).\nELI10: Today's plan gives each member private views. E1 lets a member publish a view to the whole project (\"Blocked\", \"This sprint\"), so the team stops describing filter recipes in chat and starts naming views. Project admins can edit or delete shared views; regular members can only apply them. The schema is already there from D2, so this is endpoints, permissions and a picker section, not a migration. Human ~1.5 days / CC ~45 min. Runs in parallel with the pilot build, does not block it.\nStakes if we pick wrong: skipping it leaves the 10x version on the table; adding it brings real permission logic (who may edit a view others rely on) into the first release.\nRecommendation: Add because it is the single biggest value multiplier and D2 made it cheap; E2 (default view) depends on it.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: team-level value and one permission model now vs. a smaller, purely personal first release.\"=\"Add to scope (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind."
    }
  }
}