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

{
  "source": "77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c",
  "attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9",
  "originalOutcome": "failed: Unsupported or repeated CEO pacing menu; no additional answer authorized",
  "selectionStartedAt": 1789492981938,
  "transcript": {
    "status": "ready",
    "calls": [
      {
        "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
                "description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without you naming it. ✅ One small appended section, committed once, easy to revert. ❌ Touches and commits CLAUDE.md in this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)."
              },
              {
                "label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
                "description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed. ✅ You keep full control over when skills run. ❌ You must type the skill name each time; this prompt will not reappear for this project."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.": "Add routing rules (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:19:01.205Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.",
            "header": "View model",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)",
                "description": "One canonical, versioned serialization of filters + sort. Task list reads it from the URL; saved_views stores name + the same string. Human ~4 days / CC ~40 min. ✅ One parse path for URL, picker, and reopen. ✅ Shareable links and bookmarks fall out for free. ❌ Touches filter state management even if filters live only in memory today."
              },
              {
                "label": "A: Table + JSON snapshot (as written)",
                "description": "Store name + a JSON blob of current UI filter state per project+member. Human ~3 days / CC ~30 min. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly, smallest conceptual change. ✅ Reuses filter UI state as-is with no serializer work. ❌ Blob is coupled to today's UI; adding a filter silently breaks stored views. ❌ No link sharing; reopen needs its own apply path."
              },
              {
                "label": "B: URL-addressable state only",
                "description": "Serialize filters + sort into the query string, add copy-link, members use browser bookmarks. No table, endpoints, or picker. Human ~1 day / CC ~10 min. ✅ Zero backend surface, shareable links immediately. ✅ Foundation any later saved-view feature needs. ❌ No naming or in-app picker; bookmarks are per browser and device. ❌ Pilot reuse metric needs client analytics."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:22:13.795Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.",
            "header": "Review mode",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                "description": "Hold the written scope and make it bulletproof, then offer each expansion candidate separately with effort and risk; you pick. ✅ Core stays tight while you see every cheap adjacent win. ✅ Rejected items land in NOT in scope, so nothing is lost. ❌ More questions than Hold; each candidate costs you one decision."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                "description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan, enthusiastic recommendations per item. ✅ Best shot at the full 12-month view (shared, default, dashboards) in one plan. ✅ Surfaces differentiation you may not have considered. ❌ Risk of bloating a feature whose pain is a small daily tax."
              },
              {
                "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                "description": "No additions. Trace every failure, edge case, error path, test, and observability gap in the written scope. ✅ Fastest path to a shippable, well-tested core. ✅ Fewest decisions for you. ❌ Adjacent wins (shared views, default view) wait for a later plan."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                "description": "Strip to the minimum core (for example serialization + save/list/apply, defer update and delete) with per-cut approval. ✅ Smallest first ship; validates the pilot metric sooner. ✅ Each cut is explicit and recorded. ❌ Members may hit a half-feature (cannot rename or remove views) during the pilot."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answers": {
          "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
        },
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.967Z"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01QeXbajhSwSL9wNZCSWTdxR",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\nELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight quick answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with its own effort and risk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.",
            "header": "Chain shape",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A: Full split, one per item (recommended)",
                "description": "Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start."
              },
              {
                "label": "B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set",
                "description": "I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are deferred without you weighing each one."
              },
              {
                "label": "C: Batch into groups of 4",
                "description": "Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answered": false,
        "failed": false
      }
    ],
    "assistantMessages": [
      {
        "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
        "text": "I'll start with the skill preamble.",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:18:34.207Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "viewport": "     \n     \n● Updated plan\n  ⎿  /plan to preview\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-i_mn5usl/gstack-paid-shard-m1zFjn/tmp/gstack-hermetic-603913-EbLT1W/with-skills/.cla\nude/plans/fluffy-snuggling-sprout.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Chain shape  \n\n│ D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\n│ Project/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\n│ ELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, \n│ E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management\n│ (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The\n│ question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before \n│ running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight \n│ quick answers.\n│ Recommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with \n│ its own effort and risk.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.\n    \n❯ 1. A: Full split, one per item (recommended)\n     Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the \n     assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged\n     on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start.\n  2. B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set\n     I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a \n     Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are \n     deferred without you weighing each one.\n  3. C: Batch into groups of 4\n     Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts \n     total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option.\n  4. Type something.                                                             \n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n  5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel",
  "events": [
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:19:00.447Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "input": {
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "Add routing rules (recommended)",
                "description": "✅ Future requests auto-route to the matching gstack skill without you naming it. ✅ One small appended section, committed once, easy to revert. ❌ Touches and commits CLAUDE.md in this repo (deferred until plan mode exits)."
              },
              {
                "label": "No thanks, invoke manually",
                "description": "✅ CLAUDE.md stays exactly as it is, nothing committed. ✅ You keep full control over when skills run. ❌ You must type the skill name each time; this prompt will not reappear for this project."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "messageId": "msg_011Cf5c9ET4yLP7JhHBrmuSP",
      "requestId": "req_011Cf5c9DV2C3paq96DoR92q"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:19:01.205Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01BXwcHiJ7FnTpRaA2ZRwAGu",
      "kind": "result",
      "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D1 — Add gstack skill routing rules to this project's CLAUDE.md?\nProject/branch/task: plan-review fixture on `main`, reviewing PLAN.md (saved project views).\nELI10: gstack works best when your project's CLAUDE.md includes skill routing rules, so future requests like \"review this diff\" or \"ship it\" auto-route to the right skill. This is a one-time setup prompt. Note: we are in plan mode, so if you pick A the CLAUDE.md edit and commit happen after this review finishes and plan mode exits, not now.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Low either way. Without routing you invoke skills by name; with it, a short section is appended to CLAUDE.md and committed.\nRecommendation: A because it is a two-way door and removes friction on every future request.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: convenience on every future session vs. keeping CLAUDE.md untouched.\"=\"Add routing rules (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
      "isError": false
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:12.238Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "input": {
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.",
            "header": "View model",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)",
                "description": "One canonical, versioned serialization of filters + sort. Task list reads it from the URL; saved_views stores name + the same string. Human ~4 days / CC ~40 min. ✅ One parse path for URL, picker, and reopen. ✅ Shareable links and bookmarks fall out for free. ❌ Touches filter state management even if filters live only in memory today."
              },
              {
                "label": "A: Table + JSON snapshot (as written)",
                "description": "Store name + a JSON blob of current UI filter state per project+member. Human ~3 days / CC ~30 min. ✅ Matches the plan text exactly, smallest conceptual change. ✅ Reuses filter UI state as-is with no serializer work. ❌ Blob is coupled to today's UI; adding a filter silently breaks stored views. ❌ No link sharing; reopen needs its own apply path."
              },
              {
                "label": "B: URL-addressable state only",
                "description": "Serialize filters + sort into the query string, add copy-link, members use browser bookmarks. No table, endpoints, or picker. Human ~1 day / CC ~10 min. ✅ Zero backend surface, shareable links immediately. ✅ Foundation any later saved-view feature needs. ❌ No naming or in-app picker; bookmarks are per browser and device. ❌ Pilot reuse metric needs client analytics."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "messageId": "msg_011Cf5cPoBxUEAPX2ZzV3mdY",
      "requestId": "req_011Cf5cPncULscXrR3nYFNx2"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:22:13.795Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01XG8ge3mQAmSETCnspg2D4F",
      "kind": "result",
      "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D2 — How should a saved view be represented and applied?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views (filters + sort) per member.\nELI10: The plan says \"add a saved_views table\" but not what goes in a row. If a view stores a snapshot of whatever the filter UI holds today, it breaks the day someone adds or renames a filter. If filter state is first made addressable (a URL you can copy), a saved view is just a name pointing at that same string, and links, bookmarks, and \"reopen later\" all use one code path. This decides the data model, so it comes before scope.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Stored views silently return wrong results after the next filter change, or members get a feature with no way to share a filtered list.\nRecommendation: C because one serializer serves URL, saved view, and reopen-after-changes, and it removes the stale-view bug class for ~10 extra minutes of CC time.\nCompleteness: A=7/10, B=3/10, C=9/10\nNet: A is the smallest diff today; C is the smallest diff over the next six months; B alone does not deliver named views.\"=\"C: URL-addressable + table (recommended)\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
      "isError": false
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.633Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "input": {
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.",
            "header": "Review mode",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                "description": "Hold the written scope and make it bulletproof, then offer each expansion candidate separately with effort and risk; you pick. ✅ Core stays tight while you see every cheap adjacent win. ✅ Rejected items land in NOT in scope, so nothing is lost. ❌ More questions than Hold; each candidate costs you one decision."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                "description": "Dream big: 10x vision, platonic ideal, delight scan, enthusiastic recommendations per item. ✅ Best shot at the full 12-month view (shared, default, dashboards) in one plan. ✅ Surfaces differentiation you may not have considered. ❌ Risk of bloating a feature whose pain is a small daily tax."
              },
              {
                "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                "description": "No additions. Trace every failure, edge case, error path, test, and observability gap in the written scope. ✅ Fastest path to a shippable, well-tested core. ✅ Fewest decisions for you. ❌ Adjacent wins (shared views, default view) wait for a later plan."
              },
              {
                "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                "description": "Strip to the minimum core (for example serialization + save/list/apply, defer update and delete) with per-cut approval. ✅ Smallest first ship; validates the pilot metric sooner. ✅ Each cut is explicit and recorded. ❌ Members may hit a half-feature (cannot rename or remove views) during the pilot."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "messageId": "msg_011Cf5cSWwySK25qrE4AaaYe",
      "requestId": "req_011Cf5cSWZQNyJ1VN1qktmWg"
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:23:01.967Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01EEQuKCsDHDWuufxk8QXFDs",
      "kind": "result",
      "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern the rest of this plan review?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`: saved project views, approach C approved (URL-addressable definition + saved_views table).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the next hour. Expansion means I pitch the cathedral version and you opt in per item. Selective means I harden what is written and offer each addition neutrally, one at a time. Hold means no additions, maximum rigor on failure paths and tests. Reduction means I propose cuts to the smallest useful core. Estimated ~12-15 changed files (estimate; no code in this repo to count), and this enhances an existing task list rather than building greenfield.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Expansion on a small feature bloats it; Hold on a feature with obvious adjacent wins (shared views, default view) leaves value on the table you may not get back to.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because the core is small and well-defined, but two or three adjacent items (shared views, default view, view-applied telemetry) are cheap enough to deserve a yes/no each.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how much of the 12-month view (shared, default, linkable views) you want decided in this plan versus later.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
      "isError": false
    },
    {
      "sessionId": "6b4474a6-9952-4b20-9b72-0d23c45ee2a1",
      "timestamp": "2026-09-15T17:24:41.260Z",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01QeXbajhSwSL9wNZCSWTdxR",
      "kind": "use",
      "name": "AskUserQuestion",
      "input": {
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D4.0 — Eight expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: PLAN.md on `main`, SCOPE EXPANSION mode, approach C approved.\nELI10: The delight scan and 10x check produced eight candidates: E1 shared project views, E2 default view per member, E3 copy link, E4 last-used filters auto-restore, E5 modified badge with Update/Save-as-new/Reset, E6 picker management (rename, duplicate, reorder, delete-undo), E7 pilot dashboard + error alert, E8 views feeding digests/dashboards. The question tool caps at four options per call, so with more than six items I ask you how to run the decisions before running them. Each item is independent enough to get its own yes/no, but E2 and E8 lean on E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Batching unlike items into one question hides real choices; a full chain costs you eight quick answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently selectable and in Expansion mode you should see each one with its own effort and risk.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: eight short decisions with full control vs. fewer prompts with less granularity.",
            "header": "Chain shape",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A: Full split, one per item (recommended)",
                "description": "Eight sequential questions D4.1 to D4.8, each with Add / Defer / Skip / Hold, then a D4.final to confirm the assembled set. ✅ Every proposal gets its own effort, risk, and dependency framing. ✅ Nothing is dropped or merged on your behalf. ❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start."
              },
              {
                "label": "B: Narrow first, I propose a smaller set",
                "description": "I pick the top 4-5 by value-per-effort (likely E1, E2, E3, E4, E5) and ask only those; the rest go straight to a Deferred list you can reopen. ✅ Fewer prompts. ✅ Still per-item control on the ones asked. ❌ Some items are deferred without you weighing each one."
              },
              {
                "label": "C: Batch into groups of 4",
                "description": "Two multi-select questions (E1-E4, E5-E8) where you tick what to add; unticked items are deferred. ✅ Two prompts total. ✅ You still see all eight. ❌ Loses the per-item Skip vs Defer distinction and the Hold-to-discuss option."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "messageId": "msg_011Cf5caguUqSCX5vZVBqAbo",
      "requestId": "req_011Cf5cagLVtG27rMz1BG3br"
    }
  ],
  "provenance": {
    "observation": {
      "source": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/remaining-paid-90f-repairs/executions/77fd0890ddfeaf2bdd6d78183a2d989d9a4e8d4c/all/run/phases/periodic-independent/shards/skill-e2e-plan-ceo-mode-routing/pty-count/ship-all-77fd0890-cdb7e686-73a5-41f0-86dc-e5ad4a5bf9be/plan-ceo-review-mode-1789492711069-hLrAD9/observation.json",
      "path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/final77-ceo-monitor/objects/5449d3705fecab12cc73b1ede5e9d16a710600e9776d6d9723d1a096776c2d64.json",
      "sha256": "5449d3705fecab12cc73b1ede5e9d16a710600e9776d6d9723d1a096776c2d64",
      "bytes": 16003
    },
    "completePublicProjection": {
      "source": "/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-1789492711069-hLrAD9/latest-public-transcript.json",
      "path": "/home/vercel-sandbox/gstack/.context/sep15-ship-consolidation/final77-ceo-monitor/objects/3bf1065b40836a036c8e7b9da9cd2c98a430a0d400cf878987f8652893037561.json",
      "sha256": "3bf1065b40836a036c8e7b9da9cd2c98a430a0d400cf878987f8652893037561",
      "bytes": 89559
    },
    "completePublicAncestry": [
      {
        "path": "/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-1789492711069-hLrAD9/objects/ancestry-9f299c50dbd7c0241a82a383bc4ca17af0c1a0e3a4903206ded8b9cd61121fca.json",
        "sha256": "9f299c50dbd7c0241a82a383bc4ca17af0c1a0e3a4903206ded8b9cd61121fca",
        "records": 98,
        "completeBytes": 327619
      }
    ],
    "viewport": {
      "path": "/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-1789492711069-hLrAD9/objects/c16d858fad1d0af815e7187f0a93653fe3c75f8dbb2068d66512df2838e55990.log",
      "sha256": "c16d858fad1d0af815e7187f0a93653fe3c75f8dbb2068d66512df2838e55990"
    }
  },
  "completePerProposal": {
    "source": "cab3edc8b24f873b55f6edc6d98b60981eda52cb",
    "attempt": "plan-ceo-review-mode-1789499322772-ANwLys",
    "originalFailure": "Unsupported or repeated CEO pacing menu; no additional answer authorized",
    "publicCaptureSha256": "13b9f4665cdc11e3242494497f71878b243c3e9f610b1b38bf2e562c29762a32",
    "selectionStartedAt": 1789499561262,
    "viewport": "\n  Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)\n\n● Updated plan\n  ⎿  /plan to preview\n\n  Read 1 file (ctrl+o to expand)\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\nPlanning: /tmp/gstack-owned-display-e18ize81/gstack-paid-shard-0h5CjO/tmp/gstack-hermetic-1008273-BnczFM/with-skills/.cl\naude/plans/joyful-toasting-shore.md\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n ☐ Chain shape \n\n│ D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\n│ Project/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\".       \n│ ELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings\n│ in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher +\n│ inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a\n│ final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight\n│ answers.\n│ Recommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Net: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.\n\n❯ 1. A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)\n     ✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out�✅ No item is\n     silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap�❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start\n  2. B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item\n     ✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates�✅ You can still\n     pull any listed item back in by name�❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs\n  3. C) Batch into two groups of ≤4\n     ✅ Two prompts instead of eight�✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)�❌\n     Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction\n  4. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n  5. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
    "transcript": {
      "status": "ready",
      "calls": [
        {
          "sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.",
              "header": "Review mode",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Current four bullets get the full HOLD-SCOPE rigor pass (complexity, minimum change, invariants)\n✅ You see each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, etc.) as a separate add/defer/skip call with neutral effort and risk\n❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE; each expansion costs you a decision"
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                  "description": "✅ I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal and recommend expansions enthusiastically\n✅ Best if you already know views should become a platform (shared, defaults, dashboards)\n❌ Risks building a views system before the two-week pilot shows members reuse even personal views"
                },
                {
                  "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                  "description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability hook\n✅ Fewest decisions for you; fastest path to an implementable spec\n❌ Expansion candidates are only listed in NOT-in-scope; no neutral menu to cherry-pick from"
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                  "description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that proves the pilot metric (e.g. save + reopen only, no update endpoint)\n✅ Fastest to ship for a hypothesis test\n❌ The plan is already small; cutting update/delete likely produces a feature members can't maintain"
                }
              ]
            }
          ],
          "answered": true,
          "failed": false,
          "answers": {
            "D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
          },
          "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
          "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T19:12:41.291Z"
        },
        {
          "sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
          "toolUseId": "toolu_01WJQKs3Xyzr58PtuTNsoCZY",
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher + inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.",
              "header": "Chain shape",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out\n✅ No item is silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap\n❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start"
                },
                {
                  "label": "B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item",
                  "description": "✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates\n✅ You can still pull any listed item back in by name\n❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs"
                },
                {
                  "label": "C) Batch into two groups of ≤4",
                  "description": "✅ Two prompts instead of eight\n✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)\n❌ Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction"
                }
              ]
            }
          ],
          "answered": false,
          "failed": false
        }
      ],
      "assistantMessages": []
    },
    "events": [
      {
        "sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:12:39.569Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "input": {
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.",
              "header": "Review mode",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Current four bullets get the full HOLD-SCOPE rigor pass (complexity, minimum change, invariants)\n✅ You see each expansion (shared views, default view, deep links, etc.) as a separate add/defer/skip call with neutral effort and risk\n❌ More questions than HOLD SCOPE; each expansion costs you a decision"
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
                  "description": "✅ I describe the 10x version and the platonic ideal and recommend expansions enthusiastically\n✅ Best if you already know views should become a platform (shared, defaults, dashboards)\n❌ Risks building a views system before the two-week pilot shows members reuse even personal views"
                },
                {
                  "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
                  "description": "✅ Maximum rigor on exactly the four approach bullets: every error path, edge case, test, and observability hook\n✅ Fewest decisions for you; fastest path to an implementable spec\n❌ Expansion candidates are only listed in NOT-in-scope; no neutral menu to cherry-pick from"
                },
                {
                  "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
                  "description": "✅ Strips to the minimum that proves the pilot metric (e.g. save + reopen only, no update endpoint)\n✅ Fastest to ship for a hypothesis test\n❌ The plan is already small; cutting update/delete likely produces a feature members can't maintain"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "messageId": "msg_011Cf5kovaZBzhEVgqPzWWjE",
        "requestId": "req_011Cf5kov7mNLsJv1UpwGimS"
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:12:41.291Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01GwdxEUmCCF4aTd9X99eeWr",
        "kind": "result",
        "content": "Your questions have been answered: \"D3 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: main; plan \"Add saved project views\"; estimated 10–13 changed files (migration, model, access policy, controller, routes, serializer, picker + save UI, filter-state wiring, API client, 3 test files; estimate, no app code in this repo to count against).\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. It decides whether I push you to build more (shared views, default views, deep links), hold you to exactly the four approach bullets and make them bulletproof, or argue for cutting things out. Nothing is added or removed by picking a mode; every scope change still gets its own yes/no question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: too expansive and a small enhancement balloons into a views platform before the pilot proves anyone reuses views; too tight and you ship a per-member feature that has to be rebuilt the moment a team asks to share a view.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (not greenfield, not a bug fix) under the 15-file line, and the landscape check shows the personal-vs-shared question arrives fast; you should see those options and decide item by item.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: how hard I push on ambition versus rigor for the remaining sections.\"=\"SCOPE EXPANSION\". You can now continue with these answers in mind.",
        "isError": false
      },
      {
        "sessionId": "8adb42f6-ad10-4b23-870c-beb3cf863c75",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T19:14:51.716Z",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01WJQKs3Xyzr58PtuTNsoCZY",
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "input": {
          "questions": [
            {
              "question": "D4.0 — Seven expansion proposals are on the table. How do you want to decide them?\nProject/branch/task: main; SCOPE EXPANSION on \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: I have 7 independent expansions (P1 shared views, P2 deep links, P3 project default view, P4 display settings in the view, P5 personal default + last-opened memory, P6 dirty indicator + Update vs Save-as-new, P7 quick switcher + inline rename). Each is a separate yes/no, so the honest way is one question per item. That's 7 questions plus a final confirmation. Dependencies: P3 needs P1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: batching lets an item you'd have wanted get lost in a group; splitting costs you eight answers.\nRecommendation: A because every item is independently shippable and the mode you chose is about weighing each one.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nNet: decision fidelity per item vs. fewer prompts.",
              "header": "Chain shape",
              "multiSelect": false,
              "options": [
                {
                  "label": "A) Proceed with the full split, one question per proposal (recommended)",
                  "description": "✅ Every proposal gets its own Add / Defer / Skip / Hold with effort and dependency spelled out\n✅ No item is silently merged or dropped to fit a 4-option cap\n❌ Eight prompts before the deep review sections start"
                },
                {
                  "label": "B) Narrow first: I propose a smaller top set, then ask per item",
                  "description": "✅ Fewer prompts; I lead with the 3–4 highest-value items and list the rest as deferred candidates\n✅ You can still pull any listed item back in by name\n❌ You are trusting my ranking before seeing each item's tradeoffs"
                },
                {
                  "label": "C) Batch into two groups of ≤4",
                  "description": "✅ Two prompts instead of eight\n✅ Groups are coherent: backend/ownership (P1–P4) and picker UX (P5–P7)\n❌ Multi-select in a group loses the per-item Defer vs Skip distinction"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "messageId": "msg_011Cf5kz5NAwFBA9yN1wT1ue",
        "requestId": "req_011Cf5kz4xc7mxo6PwLJWTQy"
      }
    ],
    "limitation": "Original paid failure preserved. Only exact mode and pending pacing calls plus their public events are included; onboarding calls remain in the private source capture."
  },
  "countedNativeB955": {
    "source": "b955a49ec344706fa25c4ca47bcb1dac5c06a086",
    "actualOutcome": "first attempt failed: pacing used the generic substantive allowance; pending proposal was never answered. No paid pass supplied.",
    "selectedAt": 1789504882674,
    "mode": {
      "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D2 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Do I push you to build a bigger, better version (EXPANSION)? Keep your scope but offer add-ons one at a time for you to accept or reject (SELECTIVE)? Lock scope and hunt every failure path (HOLD)? Or strip it to the smallest thing that works (REDUCTION)? Picking a mode approves no scope change by itself; every change still gets its own question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small quality-of-life feature turns into a views platform; too strict and you ship member-private views, then migrate to shared views in three months when the team asks for them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (~8-10 files), and the audit found two or three real expansions (shared visibility, versioned payload, cheaper framings) that deserve an individual yes/no rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n  ✅ Your stated scope stays the baseline; each add-on gets a neutral, separate accept/defer/skip question\n  ✅ Still runs the HOLD SCOPE complexity and minimum-change checks, so nothing sneaks in\n  ❌ More questions than HOLD; you make 3-6 small scope calls before the deep review\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n  ✅ Rethinks views as a first-class object: shared, default-per-project, deep-linkable, from day one\n  ✅ Best fit if you already know the team wants shared views and this is the moment to build them\n  ❌ Turns a small feature into a larger one; pilot metric gets harder to read\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n  ✅ Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says\n  ✅ Maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability for the stated four bullets\n  ❌ Shared visibility and payload versioning only get flagged, not offered; likely rework later\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n  ✅ Tests whether auto-persisting last-used filters or URL-encoded state covers most of the pain\n  ✅ Smallest maintenance surface if the pilot shows low reuse\n  ❌ Named saved views are already a modest feature; cutting further may leave the goal unmet\nNet: how much of the shared-vs-private and payload-format questions you want to settle now versus after the pilot.",
          "header": "Review mode",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)",
              "description": "Hold current scope, cherry-pick expansions one by one."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE EXPANSION",
              "description": "Dream big: views as a first-class shared object."
            },
            {
              "label": "HOLD SCOPE",
              "description": "Preserve scope; maximum rigor on failure paths and tests."
            },
            {
              "label": "SCOPE REDUCTION",
              "description": "Strip to the minimum viable core with your approval per cut."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D2 — Which review mode should govern this plan?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; reviewing PLAN.md \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The mode sets my posture for the rest of the review. Do I push you to build a bigger, better version (EXPANSION)? Keep your scope but offer add-ons one at a time for you to accept or reject (SELECTIVE)? Lock scope and hunt every failure path (HOLD)? Or strip it to the smallest thing that works (REDUCTION)? Picking a mode approves no scope change by itself; every change still gets its own question.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Too ambitious and a small quality-of-life feature turns into a views platform; too strict and you ship member-private views, then migrate to shared views in three months when the team asks for them.\nRecommendation: SELECTIVE EXPANSION because this is an enhancement to an existing task list (~8-10 files), and the audit found two or three real expansions (shared visibility, versioned payload, cheaper framings) that deserve an individual yes/no rather than a blanket push.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) SELECTIVE EXPANSION (recommended)\n  ✅ Your stated scope stays the baseline; each add-on gets a neutral, separate accept/defer/skip question\n  ✅ Still runs the HOLD SCOPE complexity and minimum-change checks, so nothing sneaks in\n  ❌ More questions than HOLD; you make 3-6 small scope calls before the deep review\nB) SCOPE EXPANSION\n  ✅ Rethinks views as a first-class object: shared, default-per-project, deep-linkable, from day one\n  ✅ Best fit if you already know the team wants shared views and this is the moment to build them\n  ❌ Turns a small feature into a larger one; pilot metric gets harder to read\nC) HOLD SCOPE\n  ✅ Fastest path to a bulletproof version of exactly what PLAN.md says\n  ✅ Maximum rigor on failure paths, edge cases, tests, observability for the stated four bullets\n  ❌ Shared visibility and payload versioning only get flagged, not offered; likely rework later\nD) SCOPE REDUCTION\n  ✅ Tests whether auto-persisting last-used filters or URL-encoded state covers most of the pain\n  ✅ Smallest maintenance surface if the pilot shows low reuse\n  ❌ Named saved views are already a modest feature; cutting further may leave the goal unmet\nNet: how much of the shared-vs-private and payload-format questions you want to settle now versus after the pilot.": "SCOPE EXPANSION"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T20:41:22.706Z"
    },
    "pacing": {
      "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The 10x analysis produced 11 independent add-ons (E1 shared visibility, E2 versioned payload, E3 stable view URLs, E4 modified/save-as state, E5 remember last view, E6 default view per project, E7 duplicate, E8 empty-state copy, E9 inline rename, E10 keyboard switching, L3 auto-persist last filters). Each needs its own Add / Defer / Cut call so nothing gets dropped silently. That is 11 short questions plus a final confirmation. Alternatively I narrow the list first, or batch them into groups of up to 4.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full chain costs you a dozen taps; narrowing means I pre-filter your decision space; batching risks forcing one pick among items that are not alternatives to each other.\nRecommendation: Proceed with the full split because every proposal is independent (only E6 depends on E1) and you chose EXPANSION, which means you want to see the whole menu.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Proceed with the full split (recommended)\n  ✅ You see and rule on all 11 proposals; none are cut by me before you weigh in\n  ✅ Each question carries its own effort, risk, and dependency note so the picked set stays coherent\n  ❌ Eleven sequential questions before the deep review starts\nB) Narrow scope first: I propose a smaller set\n  ✅ Fewer questions; I pre-rank and present roughly the top 5-6 with the rest listed for opt-in\n  ✅ Faster path to the deep review if you mostly trust the ranking\n  ❌ The lower-ranked items get less consideration than the mode's \"dream big\" posture implies\nC) Batch into groups of 4\n  ✅ Three or four questions instead of eleven\n  ✅ Related items (E4/E5/E6 all touch \"which view is active\") appear side by side\n  ❌ Multi-select batches blur individual Defer vs Cut decisions and dependency notes\nNet: your time now versus the completeness of the decision record.",
          "header": "Chain size",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)",
              "description": "11 per-item questions (Add / Defer / Cut / Hold), then a final confirmation."
            },
            {
              "label": "Narrow scope first",
              "description": "I present a ranked top 5-6; the rest are offered on request."
            },
            {
              "label": "Batch into groups of 4",
              "description": "Multi-select batches of related proposals."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": true,
      "failed": false,
      "answers": {
        "D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\nELI10: The 10x analysis produced 11 independent add-ons (E1 shared visibility, E2 versioned payload, E3 stable view URLs, E4 modified/save-as state, E5 remember last view, E6 default view per project, E7 duplicate, E8 empty-state copy, E9 inline rename, E10 keyboard switching, L3 auto-persist last filters). Each needs its own Add / Defer / Cut call so nothing gets dropped silently. That is 11 short questions plus a final confirmation. Alternatively I narrow the list first, or batch them into groups of up to 4.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Full chain costs you a dozen taps; narrowing means I pre-filter your decision space; batching risks forcing one pick among items that are not alternatives to each other.\nRecommendation: Proceed with the full split because every proposal is independent (only E6 depends on E1) and you chose EXPANSION, which means you want to see the whole menu.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Proceed with the full split (recommended)\n  ✅ You see and rule on all 11 proposals; none are cut by me before you weigh in\n  ✅ Each question carries its own effort, risk, and dependency note so the picked set stays coherent\n  ❌ Eleven sequential questions before the deep review starts\nB) Narrow scope first: I propose a smaller set\n  ✅ Fewer questions; I pre-rank and present roughly the top 5-6 with the rest listed for opt-in\n  ✅ Faster path to the deep review if you mostly trust the ranking\n  ❌ The lower-ranked items get less consideration than the mode's \"dream big\" posture implies\nC) Batch into groups of 4\n  ✅ Three or four questions instead of eleven\n  ✅ Related items (E4/E5/E6 all touch \"which view is active\") appear side by side\n  ❌ Multi-select batches blur individual Defer vs Cut decisions and dependency notes\nNet: your time now versus the completeness of the decision record.": "Proceed with the full split (recommended)"
      },
      "unansweredQuestionIndices": [],
      "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T20:42:35.861Z"
    },
    "pending": {
      "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
      "toolUseId": "toolu_01K811Ztw6AZKMcbwVkLg6Qu",
      "questions": [
        {
          "question": "D3.1 — E1: Shared (project-level) views alongside private ones?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION, ledger row L1.\nELI10: Today's plan scopes every view to one member. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private | project) and `created_by`. The list endpoint returns your private views plus the project's shared ones; the picker shows \"Mine\" and \"Team\". Any project member can create a shared view; only the creator or a project admin can edit or delete it. The stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is a team pain, and Jira and Asana both landed on this dual layer. Dependency: E6 (default view per project) needs E1.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Without it, five members build five copies of \"Blocked\" and the team has no shared vocabulary; adding it later means a migration and a fight over who owns existing views. With it, you take on a small permission surface (who may edit a shared view) on day one.\nRecommendation: Include because it is one column plus one permission check on top of a table you are building anyway, and it is the single change most likely to make the pilot show real reuse. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\nPros / cons:\nA) Include in this plan (recommended)\n  ✅ One \"Blocked\" view means the same thing to everyone; recreated-filter pain actually goes away\n  ✅ Schema is right from day one; no later migration or ownership dispute over existing rows\n  ❌ Adds an authorization rule (creator or admin edits shared views) that needs tests and clear error copy\nB) Defer to TODOS.md\n  ✅ Ships the plan as written faster; pilot measures private reuse first\n  ✅ Keeps the permission surface at exactly the existing project-membership check\n  ❌ Likely migration later; pilot may undercount value because private-only views miss the team pain\nC) Cut entirely\n  ✅ Smallest possible feature; no visibility concept ever\n  ✅ Zero shared-ownership edge cases (deleting a view others use, etc.)\n  ❌ Locks the product into per-member presets even though the landscape converged on shared\nD) Hold: stop the chain and discuss E1 first\n  ✅ Lets you settle the visibility model before ruling on E3-E6, which lean on it\n  ❌ Pauses the expansion chain; no other items get decided until you resume\nNet: settle the visibility model now with one column, or ship private-only and accept a probable migration.",
          "header": "E1 shared",
          "options": [
            {
              "label": "Include (recommended)",
              "description": "Add visibility (private | project) + created_by; \"Mine\" and \"Team\" in picker."
            },
            {
              "label": "Defer to TODOS.md",
              "description": "Record with context; ship private-only views first."
            },
            {
              "label": "Cut",
              "description": "Not in scope; goes to NOT in scope."
            },
            {
              "label": "Hold",
              "description": "Stop the chain; discuss E1 before continuing."
            }
          ],
          "multiSelect": false
        }
      ],
      "answered": false,
      "failed": false
    },
    "viewport": " ☐ Chain size \n\n│ D3.0 — Eleven expansion proposals: full per-item chain, narrow first, or batch?\n│Project/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION review of \"Add saved project views\".\n\n│ELI10:The10xanalysisproduced11independentadd-ons(E1sharedvisibility,E2versionedpayload,E3stableview\n\n│URLs,E4modified/save-asstate,E5rememberlastview,E6defaultviewperproject,E7duplicate,E8empty-state\n\n│copy,E9inlinerename,E10keyboardswitching,L3auto-persistlastfilters).EachneedsitsownAdd/Defer/Cut\n\n│callsonothinggetsdroppedsilently.Thatis11shortquestionsplusafinalconfirmation.AlternativelyInarrow\n\n│thelistfirst,orbatchthemintogroupsofupto4.\n\n│Stakesifwepickwrong:Fullchaincostsyouadozentaps;narrowingmeansIpre-filteryourdecisionspace;batching\n\n│risksforcingonepickamongitemsthatarenotalternativestoeachother.\n\n│Recommendation:Proceedwiththefullsplitbecauseeveryproposalisindependent(onlyE6dependsonE1)andyou\n\n│choseEXPANSION,whichmeansyouwanttoseethewholemenu.\n\n│Note:optionsdifferinkind,notcoverage—nocompletenessscore.\n\n│Pros/cons:\n\n│A)Proceedwiththefullsplit(recommended)\n\n│ ✅Youseeandruleonall11proposals;nonearecutbymebeforeyouweighin\n\n│ ✅Eachquestioncarriesitsowneffort,risk,anddependencynotesothepickedsetstayscoherent\n\n│ ❌Elevensequentialquestionsbeforethedeepreviewstarts\n\n│B)Narrowscopefirst:Iproposeasmallerset\n\n│ ✅Fewerquestions;Ipre-rankandpresentroughlythetop5-6withtherestlistedforopt-in\n\n│ ✅Fasterpathtothedeepreviewifyoumostlytrusttheranking\n\n│ ❌Thelower-rankeditemsgetlessconsiderationthanthemode's\"dreambig\"postureimplies\n\n│C)Batchintogroupsof4\n\n│ ✅Threeorfourquestionsinsteadofeleven\n\n│ ✅Relateditems(E4/E5/E6alltouch\"whichviewisactive\")appearsidebyside\n\n│ ❌Multi-selectbatchesblurindividualDefervsCutdecisionsanddependencynotes\n\n│Net:yourtimeno…\n\n\n\n❯1.Proceedwiththefullsplit(recommended)\n\n11per-itemquestions(Add/Defer/Cut/Hold),thenafinalconfirmation.\n\n2.Narrowscopefirst\n\nIpresentarankedtop5-6;therestareofferedonrequest.\n\n3.Batchintogroupsof4\n\nMulti-selectbatchesofrelatedproposals.\n\n4.Typesomething.\n\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n\n5.Chataboutthis\n\n\n\nEntertoselect·↑/↓tonavigate·Esctocancel",
    "nextViewport": "│ D3.1 — E1: Shared (project-level) views alongside private ones?\n│ Project/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; SCOPE EXPANSION, ledger row L1.\n│ ELI10: Today's plan scopes every view to one member. E1 adds a `visibility` column (private | project) and\n│ `created_by`. The list endpoint returns your private views plus the project's shared ones; the picker shows \"Mine\" and\n│ \"Team\". Any project member can create a shared view; only the creator or a project admin can edit or delete it. The\n│ stated pain (\"team members repeatedly recreate filters\") is a team pain, and Jira and Asana both landed on this dual\n│ layer. Dependency: E6 (default view per project) needs E1.\n│ Stakes if we pick wrong: Without it, five members build five copies of \"Blocked\" and the team has no shared\n│ vocabulary; adding it later means a migration and a fight over who owns existing views. With it, you take on a small\n│ permission surface (who may edit a shared view) on day one.\n│ Recommendation: Include because it is one column plus one permission check on top of a table you are building anyway,\n│ and it is the single change most likely to make the pilot show real reuse. (human: ~1 day / CC: ~10 min)\n│ Note: options differ in kind, not coverage — no completeness score.\n│ Pros / cons:\n│ A) Include in this plan (recommended)\n│   ✅ One \"Blocked\" view means the same thing to everyone; recreated-filter pain actually goes away\n│   ✅ Schema is right from day one; no later migration or ownership dispute over existing rows\n│   ❌ Adds an authorization rule (creator or admin edits shared views) that needs tests and clear error copy\n│ B) Defer to TODOS.md\n│   ✅ Ships the plan as written faster; pilot measures private reuse first\n│   ✅ Keeps the permission surface at exactly the existing project-membership check\n│   ❌ Likely migration later; pilot may undercount value because private-only views miss the team pain\n│ C) Cut entirely\n│   ✅ Smallest possible feature; no visibility concept ever\n│   ✅ Zero shared-ownership edge cases (deleting a view other…\n\n❯ 1. Include (recommended)\n     Add visibility (private | project) + created_by; \"Mine\" and \"Team\" in picker.\n  2. Defer to TODOS.md\n     Record with context; ship private-only views first.\n  3. Cut\n     Not in scope; goes to NOT in scope.\n  4. Hold\n     Stop the chain; discuss E1 before continuing.\n  5. Type something.\n────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────\n  6. Chat about this\n\nEnter to select · ↑/↓ to navigate · Esc to cancel\n",
    "events": [
      {
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:41:20.626Z",
        "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt"
      },
      {
        "kind": "result",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:41:22.706Z",
        "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01NA24LMtPcSFuxeKaJQkDYt",
        "isError": false
      },
      {
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:34.622Z",
        "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT"
      },
      {
        "kind": "result",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:35.861Z",
        "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01UFKuY2dmUU9nEqDPEzy1YT",
        "isError": false
      },
      {
        "kind": "use",
        "name": "AskUserQuestion",
        "timestamp": "2026-09-15T20:42:55.217Z",
        "sessionId": "3a32c9a8-fd5a-4557-9b79-965c64aa8fcb",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01K811Ztw6AZKMcbwVkLg6Qu"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": "Exact public native calls and public event identities from retained source; pacing viewport is an exact contiguous visible-terminal segment. Full source receipts live in final-b955-ceo-monitor/expansion-first-pending."
  }
}