gstack/test/fixtures/ceo-recorded-decisions-dacc95ea.json

{
  "source": "dacc95ea69dc73d7d0358165355969b6e4f10f6f",
  "provenance": "Actual failed public native decisions and ACKs; saved plans reconstructed exactly from successful same-path Write/Edit inputs before each Ask. No hidden reasoning. Original paid attempts remain failed; these free cases provide no paid credit.",
  "cases": [
    {
      "name": "five-first",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "c5058fe5-160a-4330-adb1-e398ddac9fda",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01REYfnpbpZsKnsnxixbFLak",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D2 (ledger R1) \u2014 How should the new Stripe payment handler be routed?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: Today a shared \"dispatcher\" hands each Stripe event to a handler and wraps it in the safety checks the plan relies on (signature already verified upstream, dedupe by event ID, per-user lock, unknown-user stop). The plan wants a new app-owned handler class AND wants to skip the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". The name alone gives you the namespace. Skipping the dispatcher is a second change, and the plan never says where those safety checks actually live. If they live in the dispatcher, bypassing it drops them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a missed guard on the new path means duplicate payment processing or an unlocked update, with no error and no alert (silent failure).\nRecommendation: A because it delivers the approved name and app ownership while inheriting every guard by construction, at the smallest diff.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=8/10\nNet: A trades total module independence for guaranteed guard coverage; B trades guaranteed guard coverage for independence nobody asked for; C is smallest but leaves the approved class name unused.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
                "description": "New Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler, routed by the existing dispatcher under the existing flag. Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~10 min), risk low. \u2705 Signature, dedupe, lock, unknown-user, tracing all inherited without re-proving them. \u2705 Rollback is a registration swap; smallest diff; approved class name used. \u274c Handler still conforms to the dispatcher interface; plan's \"bypass\" wording must be rewritten."
              },
              {
                "label": "B) Bypass WebhookDispatcher (as planned)",
                "description": "New class wired to ingress directly. Effort M (human ~3 days / CC ~30 min), risk high. \u2705 Zero dependency on the dispatcher module; full namespace and module separation. \u2705 Future handlers could follow a dispatcher-free pattern if that is a real goal. \u274c Every \"retained\" guard must be independently proven on the new path; two routing paths to flag and maintain; a missed guard fails silently."
              },
              {
                "label": "C) Reuse dispatcher, no new handler class",
                "description": "Existing handler slot calls an app-owned service object (e.g. Payments::ProcessSucceededIntent). Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~10 min), risk low. \u2705 Smallest surface; guards inherited; orchestration unit-testable in isolation. \u2705 No new routing or registration to keep in sync. \u274c Approved class name goes unused; ownership boundary sits inside the adapter call, less legible to the next engineer."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answers": {
          "D2 (ledger R1) \u2014 How should the new Stripe payment handler be routed?\nProject/branch/task: plan-count fixture on `main`; HOLD SCOPE CEO review of PLAN.md.\nELI10: Today a shared \"dispatcher\" hands each Stripe event to a handler and wraps it in the safety checks the plan relies on (signature already verified upstream, dedupe by event ID, per-user lock, unknown-user stop). The plan wants a new app-owned handler class AND wants to skip the dispatcher for \"clean namespace separation\". The name alone gives you the namespace. Skipping the dispatcher is a second change, and the plan never says where those safety checks actually live. If they live in the dispatcher, bypassing it drops them.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a missed guard on the new path means duplicate payment processing or an unlocked update, with no error and no alert (silent failure).\nRecommendation: A because it delivers the approved name and app ownership while inheriting every guard by construction, at the smallest diff.\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10, C=8/10\nNet: A trades total module independence for guaranteed guard coverage; B trades guaranteed guard coverage for independence nobody asked for; C is smallest but leaves the approved class name unused.": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
        },
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:28:00.820Z",
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": []
      },
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-beKbVR/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing Integration\n\n## Existing contracts retained\nThe approved motivation is to move payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while retaining the\nexisting payment and receipt product behavior. The shared dispatcher remains\navailable; the proposed bypass below is still an architectural choice to review.\nThe existing ingress middleware verifies the Stripe signature against the\nraw request body and rejects invalid signatures before invoking handlers.\nThe existing ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` events to\nthis handler; other Stripe event types are acknowledged without invoking it.\nThe existing payload adapter exposes `event.data.object.metadata.user_id`\nas `request.params.userId`. This params object is the parsed body-data map,\nnot URL query/path parameters; all users share one webhook URL.\nThe adapter acknowledges missing, nil, or empty user_id metadata with\nHTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning before invoking this handler.\nFor every nonempty external string it performs no SQL-format validation.\nThe adapter forwards that external string unchanged. It does not cast,\nescape, or SQL-sanitize it; a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\nUser IDs are opaque TEXT values, including punctuation and Unicode. The\nlookup has no integer/UUID cast or ID-format restriction; every nonempty\nstring is a valid identifier representation.\nAn existing ingress ownership guard checks the PaymentIntent ID against\nits stored opaque user-ID binding before invoking the handler. A mismatch\nis acknowledged with HTTP 200 and an event-correlated warning. This is an\nidentity comparison, not SQL-format validation; the adapter still forwards\nthe original string unchanged.\nThe existing webhook event guard deduplicates deliveries by Stripe event ID,\nand an existing per-user lock serializes payment updates.\nThe event guard acquires the existing per-user lock before checking the\ncommitted completion marker, and rechecks after any lock wait. It holds\nthat lock through the handler and completion bookkeeping; an overlapping\ncompleted duplicate does not invoke the handler.\nThe new handler runs inside those unchanged guards; this plan does not\nreplace signature verification, event deduplication, or update locking.\nThe existing user update assigns payment_status=paid and the payment intent\nID; it does not increment a balance or counter. Repeating the same payment\nintent assigns the same values, independently of the event-ID guard.\nThe existing lookup-result guard acknowledges unknown/deleted users with\nHTTP 200, logs the event, and stops before user updates or email fan-out.\nThe retained recipient-policy helper treats a nil or empty email address as\nskipped_missing_address: payment processing continues normally, and no mail\nclient call is attempted. It persists an event/user/PaymentIntent-correlated\nskip record, emits a structured warning, and increments the existing counter.\nThe existing notification runbook already covers that skip result: correct\nthe account address, then retry only its recorded notification using the\nsame PaymentIntent idempotency key. It never replays the payment for this case.\nThat recipient policy does not catch failures from sends to nonempty addresses;\nthe shared mail client still rethrows those exceptions to this handler.\nAccount deletion uses the same per-user lock. The handler holds it from\nlookup through update and inline email, so deletion either precedes lookup\n(the existing unknown/deleted-user path) or follows the handler; it cannot\nremove the user between lookup and update.\nThe ingress wrapper already logs event IDs, outcomes, and durations, with\nalerts for failed webhook processing. Those controls remain in place.\nThe existing DB and mail clients attach the adapter user ID and event ID\nto outcome traces, including update success and email delivery success or\nfailure. These shared clients rethrow exceptions unchanged; tracing does\nnot rescue email errors or change the inline email call below.\nThe shared mail client also publishes its delivery failure rate to the\nexisting dashboard and tested on-call alert, including caught exceptions.\nThe existing incident runbook uses the correlated DB and mail outcomes to\ndistinguish committed payments from failed notifications. It directs on-call\nto check provider status and retry only the failed notification through the\nexisting notification retry procedure, never replay the payment blindly.\nDB lookup/update exceptions propagate to that ingress wrapper, which logs\nthe failure and returns HTTP 500 so Stripe retries the event. The existing\nevent-ID dedup guard records completion only after the database transaction\ncommits; failed or rolled-back database attempts remain retryable.\nThe deployment already has a handler feature flag and a documented, tested\nrollback to the prior handler; this change uses that existing rollout path.\nThat documented manual rollout checklist already requires a staging\npayment-event replay for this handler and verification of the user update,\nemail delivery, and correlated outcome trace before enabling it broadly.\nThis is manual deployment verification, not automated handler regression\ncoverage; no new automated tests are planned in the Tests section below.\nThe existing notification contract sends one payment receipt per PaymentIntent,\nincluding a summary of the user orders. With zero orders it still sends one\nreceipt with an empty order summary; the order loop is data loading, never\none email or payment update per order. These product semantics are retained.\nThe shared mail client already derives a provider idempotency key from that\nPaymentIntent ID. The provider durably suppresses duplicate successful sends\nfor the same key across process crashes, webhook retries, and manual retries.\nBefore rethrowing a failed or timed-out send, that client durably records the\nnotification attempt for the existing retry procedure. The dashboard and\non-call alert already monitor failed-notification age and backlog after an\noutage clears, as well as failure rate; the runbook retries those records.\nThe existing mail-client deadline is one second, enforced by cancellation\nof the provider request with no inline retries. It raises MailTimeout on\nexpiry. The retained DB/ingress deadlines bound their combined work to two\nseconds, leaving headroom inside the existing ten-second webhook deadline.\nNeither deadlines nor retry records catch the mail exception for this handler;\nthe shared client still rethrows it to the inline caller described below.\nEvery existing event-correlated outcome trace includes the active handler\nidentity (prior or new), so rollout attribution is already available.\nIf a separate handler class is retained, its already-approved name is\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` in the application-owned namespace,\nnever the Stripe library namespace. This naming choice is settled; whether\nto add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open.\n\n## Architecture\nWe're adding a new `StripePaymentWebhookHandler` class that will handle Stripe webhooks.\nThis bypasses the existing `WebhookDispatcher` module \u2014 we want a clean\nnamespace separation.\n\n## Database access\nThe new endpoint reads `request.params.userId` directly into a raw SQL\nfragment for the lookup query.\n\n## Webhook fan-out\nOn payment success we update the user record AND fire a notification email.\nBoth happen inline; no error handling on the email leg.\n\n## Tests\nNone planned. We'll rely on the existing integration suite catching regressions.\n\n## Performance\nEach webhook lookup hits the database for the user, then fetches each\norder in a loop.",
      "savedPlan": "# CEO Review: Payment Processing Integration (HOLD SCOPE)\n\nGenerated by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15\nRepo: gstack-plan-count-Q0ge2Y (fixture, no remote) | Branch: main | Base: main (fallback; no origin HEAD)\nPlan under review: `PLAN.md` (copied into CLAUDE.md as the session request)\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction; no mode question asked)\n\n## Context\n\nThe approved motivation is to move Stripe payment orchestration out of the prior\nlibrary-adapter handler into application-owned code while keeping the existing\npayment and receipt behavior byte-for-byte. The plan proposes a new\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` (name already approved) that bypasses\n`WebhookDispatcher`, builds the user lookup from `request.params.userId` as a raw\nSQL fragment, updates the user and sends the receipt inline with no rescue on the\nmail leg, fetches orders in a per-order loop, and ships with no new tests.\n\nThis document is the review record. Findings are pending until a decision is\nrecorded in the ledger below. No code is changed by this review.\n\n## Queued follow-up (outside plan mode)\n\n- D1 = A: append the gstack skill-routing block to `CLAUDE.md` and commit\n  `chore: add gstack skill routing rules to CLAUDE.md`. Deferred because plan mode\n  forbids the edit and commit right now.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n| Check | Result |\n|---|---|\n| Repo contents | `CLAUDE.md`, `PLAN.md` only. No application code to inspect. Every \"existing contract\" in the plan is unverifiable here and is treated as a stated claim. |\n| Git history | 1 commit (`f815b76 Seed review plan`). No prior review cycles, refactors, or reverts. Retrospective check: nothing to report. |\n| In flight | No stashes, no other branches, clean tree. |\n| TODO/FIXME/HACK | None. No TODOS.md. |\n| Design doc / handoff | None. `/office-hours` skipped per user instruction. |\n| Prior learnings | 0. Cross-project learnings config unset; not asked this session because there are zero learnings to search either way. |\n| Brain context | All four digests cold. |\n| Frontend/UI scope | None. Webhook handler only. Section 11 is a no-UI skip. |\n| Landscape (WebSearch; Aside absent) | Layer 1: verify signature against raw body, dedupe on `event.id`, commit before 2xx, parameterize DB access. Layer 2: 2026 guides say the same; the plan's retained guards already cover signature, dedup, and lock. Layer 3 (first principles): the plan asserts the new handler \"runs inside those unchanged guards\" while also bypassing `WebhookDispatcher`. If the dispatcher is what wires those guards around a handler, the bypass silently removes them. The plan does not say where the guards live. That is the single most important unknown in this review. |\n\n## Step 0A: Premise challenge\n\n1. Right problem? Yes, with a caveat. Ownership of payment orchestration belongs in\n   the application, not a library adapter. But the stated goal (\"clean namespace\n   separation\") is satisfied by the approved class name alone. Bypassing the\n   dispatcher is a second, unrelated change that the plan presents as the same thing.\n2. Outcome. Business outcome is maintainability: future payment changes land in\n   app code without touching adapter internals. Users should see zero difference.\n   The plan reaches that outcome only if behavior is preserved, which makes \"no\n   tests\" the loudest contradiction in the document.\n3. Do nothing? The prior handler keeps working behind the feature flag. Pain is\n   real but internal (peacetime refactor). That lowers the tolerance for new risk:\n   a refactor with no user-visible upside must not introduce user-visible downside.\n\n## Step 0B: Existing code leverage\n\n| Sub-problem | Existing code (per plan) | Plan's use |\n|---|---|---|\n| Signature verification | Ingress middleware, raw body | Retained (claimed) |\n| Event type filter | Ingress forwards only `payment_intent.succeeded` | Retained (claimed) |\n| user_id extraction | Payload adapter -> `request.params.userId` (opaque TEXT, unsanitized) | Read directly into raw SQL. Contradicts the plan's own contract line: \"a valid signature does not make it safe for SQL.\" |\n| Missing/empty user_id | Adapter returns 200 + warning before handler | Retained |\n| PaymentIntent ownership | Ingress ownership guard | Retained (claimed) |\n| Dedup + per-user lock | Event guard, lock held through handler + completion bookkeeping | Retained (claimed); wiring location unknown |\n| Unknown/deleted user | Lookup-result guard, 200 + log, stops before update/email | Retained |\n| Missing email address | Recipient-policy helper -> `skipped_missing_address` + skip record + counter | Retained |\n| Mail send | Shared mail client: PaymentIntent idempotency key, 1s deadline, `MailTimeout`, durable attempt record, rethrows | Called inline; exception rethrown out of handler with no rescue |\n| DB errors | Propagate to ingress wrapper -> 500 -> Stripe retry; dedup completion recorded only after commit | Retained |\n| Observability | Wrapper logs + alerts; DB/mail traces carry user/event/handler identity; mail failure-rate dashboard + alert; failed-notification age/backlog alert | Retained |\n| Rollout | Handler feature flag, tested rollback, manual staging replay checklist | Retained |\n| Order summary | Existing contract: one receipt per PaymentIntent, order summary, empty summary for zero orders | Loop fetch per order (N+1) |\n\nRebuilding check: the plan rebuilds nothing except the handler body. The one place\nit risks rebuilding is guard wiring, if `WebhookDispatcher` is the component that\napplies the guards. The plan gives no reason why bypassing is better than\nregistering with the dispatcher; \"clean namespace separation\" is a naming\nproperty, not a routing property.\n\n## Step 0C: Dream state (12 months)\n\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                      THIS PLAN                          12-MONTH IDEAL\n  Library-adapter handler owns       New app-owned handler class;       All Stripe event types handled by\n  payment orchestration; guards,     bypasses dispatcher; raw SQL       app-owned handlers registered through\n  dedup, lock, mail client are       user lookup; inline mail with      ONE dispatcher that applies the shared\n  shared and tested; feature flag    no rescue; N+1 order loop;         guards; parameterized data access\n  + rollback exist                   no automated tests                 everywhere; per-handler contract tests;\n                                                                        notification outcomes recorded, never\n                                                                        conflated with payment outcomes\n```\n\nDirection: ownership move is toward the ideal. Dispatcher bypass and raw SQL are\naway from it (two routing paths to maintain; one unparameterized query in the\npayment path). No tests is neutral-to-away (the next handler copies the pattern).\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R1 Handler routing (user) | Plan: \"whether to add a separate implementation or reuse WebhookDispatcher remains open.\" Name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` settled. Guard wiring location: unknown (no code in repo). | Prior handler behind flag; dispatcher available | Separate class bypassing dispatcher (Architecture section) | unresolved | pending D2 |\n| R2 Lookup query construction (user) | Plan contract: user_id is opaque TEXT, unsanitized, \"not safe for SQL\". Database access section: raw SQL fragment. Concrete contradiction. | Prior handler's lookup (method unknown) | Raw SQL fragment from `request.params.userId` | unresolved | to be asked in Security section |\n| R3 Mail-leg error handling (user) | Plan contract: mail client rethrows `MailTimeout`/send errors to this handler; durable attempt record + provider idempotency key exist; DB exceptions -> 500 -> Stripe retry. Fan-out section: no rescue. | Prior handler behavior unknown | Inline send, uncaught exception | unresolved | to be asked in Error/rescue map |\n| R4 Automated tests (user) | Plan: \"None planned\"; rollout checklist is manual staging replay. Engineering prefs: well-tested is non-negotiable. HOLD SCOPE: repairs needed to meet stated invariants (\"retaining existing behavior\") are in scope. | Existing integration suite (coverage of this handler unknown) | No new tests | unresolved | to be asked in Test section |\n| R5 Order loading (user) | Plan contract: order loop is data loading only; DB/ingress deadline bounds work to 2s inside 10s webhook deadline. Performance section: fetch each order in a loop. | Unknown | N+1 loop | unresolved | to be asked in Performance section |\n| D1 Routing rules (user) | gstack onboarding gate | No routing block in CLAUDE.md | Append block + commit | approved | D1 answer = A; deferred until plan mode exits |\n\n## Step 0D: Alternatives for R1 (handler routing)\n\nR1 is the only approach decision the plan itself marks open, and the answer\ngoverns which guards the Architecture, Security, and Error/rescue sections can\nassume. R2 through R5 are defects inside a chosen approach; each is asked once in\nits owning section, not here.\n\nCommitment grid (offered options only; shared and pending values shown):\n\n```\nCommitment                          | Source/approval or pending | Current            | A                    | B                    | C\nHandler class name                  | approved (plan)            | n/a                | Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler | same | unused (no new class)\nApplication-owned orchestration     | approved motivation        | adapter-owned      | yes                  | yes                  | yes (service object)\nRouting through WebhookDispatcher   | pending R1                 | dispatcher         | yes (registered)     | no (bypassed)        | yes (existing slot)\nGuard coverage on new path          | claimed, unverified        | applied            | inherited            | must be re-proven    | inherited\nFeature flag / rollback path        | approved (existing)        | flag selects handler | flag selects registration | flag must also select route | flag selects service\nLookup query, mail rescue, tests, order loading | pending R2-R5     | unknown            | pending              | pending              | pending\n```\n\nOptions:\n\n**A) Separate handler registered with WebhookDispatcher.** Add\n`Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler`; the dispatcher routes\n`payment_intent.succeeded` to it under the existing feature flag. Effort S\n(human ~1 day / CC ~10 min). Risk low.\nPros: namespace goal met; guards, dedup, lock, and tracing are inherited by\nconstruction; smallest diff; rollback is a registration swap.\nCons: handler still conforms to the dispatcher's interface; \"bypass\" language in\nthe plan must be rewritten; one more registration to keep in sync.\nReuse: everything in 0B. Verification: dispatcher registration test + handler\nunit tests (if R4 approves).\n\n**B) Separate handler bypassing WebhookDispatcher (as planned).** New class wired\nto ingress directly. Effort M (human ~3 days / CC ~30 min). Risk high.\nPros: zero dependency on the dispatcher module; complete namespace and module\nseparation.\nCons: every guard the plan says is \"retained\" must be independently proven to\napply on the new path; two routing paths to maintain and to flag; a missed guard\nis a silent security or double-processing failure; no reason given for why the\ndispatcher is a problem.\nReuse: guards only if they live in ingress, not in the dispatcher. Verification:\nrequires a guard-coverage test matrix the plan does not include.\n\n**C) Reuse WebhookDispatcher, orchestration in an app-owned service, no new\nhandler class.** The existing handler slot calls `Payments::ProcessSucceededIntent`\n(or similar). Effort S (human ~1 day / CC ~10 min). Risk low.\nPros: smallest surface; guards inherited; orchestration is app-owned and unit\ntestable.\nCons: the approved class name goes unused; the ownership boundary sits inside the\nadapter's call rather than at the handler edge; slightly less legible to the next\nengineer looking for \"the Stripe handler\".\n\nCompleteness: A=9/10, B=6/10 (guard coverage unproven), C=8/10.\nRecommendation: A. It delivers the approved name and app ownership while keeping\nthe guard wiring the plan depends on, at the smallest diff.\n",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:28:00.076Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "id": "toolu_01SkqZi2NgAt1j6i52hj3EAA",
          "tool": "Write",
          "file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-beKbVR/gstack-test-plan-ceo.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:41.372Z"
        }
      ],
      "savedPlanSha256": "8f0a929598aac294ffadb883b4b9380a319a4a0227ff4bf9dede74897573b723",
      "seedBuilderSha256": "a3de97b14e141dce64140f5ed3f2700062ce8d4dcf68da40921d2bc09a4396b7",
      "publicProjectionSha256": "07f7cd43fecaebf175729c358651d7d3caff9953d34db42b03d21fb84c3ecdd4"
    },
    {
      "name": "paired-first",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "9cf042a2-0e4a-4543-a3db-62bfdb56cf11",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01D7M2PZFmAX63V5pBrCGmYy",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 \u2014 How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FoUPOz on main; two new processPayment unit tests, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what a good receipt looks like ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }) and then only checks that *something* came back. A test that passes when the receipt is `{}` or has the wrong amount is not protecting anything. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the virtual sleeper, so checking the real contract costs a few lines, not new infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong-amount or wrong-currency receipt, or a double charge on the happy path, ships green.\nRecommendation: A because the evidence is already exposed by the existing helpers and the assertions are ~6 lines.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a few lines of coupling to the mock's call-history shape against actually pinning the payment contract the plan itself documents.",
            "header": "D1 Test 1",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Full happy-path contract (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Deep-equal receipt {ch_paid, 1000, USD}; exactly one charge call with the requested amount/currency; sleeper recorded no backoff. Catches malformed receipt, double-charge, stray retry.\n\u2705 Uses only helpers the plan says already exist (mock call history, virtual sleeper); ~6 lines, same file.\n\u274c Couples the test to the mock call-history API shape; the sleeper-empty check is inferred from the contract, not stated in the plan."
              },
              {
                "label": "B) Receipt fields only",
                "description": "\u2705 Pins the receipt contract exactly as the plan states it, with a single deep-equality assertion (~2 lines).\n\u2705 No dependence on mock internals, so helper API drift cannot break it.\n\u274c A double charge on success or a spurious backoff still passes; the retry loop stays unpinned on the happy path."
              },
              {
                "label": "C) As planned: truthy only",
                "description": "\u2705 Smallest possible diff (1 line) and immune to any helper API change.\n\u2705 Still proves processPayment resolves rather than throws on a 200.\n\u274c Passes for {}, a string, or a receipt with the wrong amount or currency; the test documents nothing about the payment contract."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answers": {
          "D1 \u2014 How deep should the successful-charge test assert?\nProject/branch/task: gstack-plan-count-FoUPOz on main; two new processPayment unit tests, HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: The plan writes down exactly what a good receipt looks like ({ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }) and then only checks that *something* came back. A test that passes when the receipt is `{}` or has the wrong amount is not protecting anything. The factory already exposes the Stripe mock's call history and the virtual sleeper, so checking the real contract costs a few lines, not new infrastructure.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a wrong-amount or wrong-currency receipt, or a double charge on the happy path, ships green.\nRecommendation: A because the evidence is already exposed by the existing helpers and the assertions are ~6 lines.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=7/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading a few lines of coupling to the mock's call-history shape against actually pinning the payment contract the plan itself documents.": "A) Full happy-path contract (recommended)"
        },
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:02.170Z",
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": []
      },
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.",
      "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\nWorking plan for `/plan-ceo-review` (HOLD SCOPE). Source: `PLAN.md` @ b4c75e9 on `main`.\nBase branch: `main` (no remote; git-native fallback). Reviewed 2026-09-15.\n\n## Context\n\n`processPayment()` already implements two contracts that have no direct unit\ncoverage in its own suite: (1) a successful Stripe charge yields a receipt\n`{ chargeId, amountCents, currency }` copied from the request and Stripe id;\n(2) with `max_retries=1`, repeated 502s produce exactly two charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, then `PaymentUnavailable`. The Stripe\nadapter suite covers timeouts, 402, 429 and 502-then-success; the receipt\nbuilder has its own regression tests. This plan adds two unit tests to the\nexisting `processPayment` suite. Production code stays as-is.\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests (as submitted; assertion depth pending \u2014 see ledger)\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.\n\n---\n\n# CEO Review \u2014 Step 0 working notes\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n- Repo contains only `CLAUDE.md` and `PLAN.md` (fixture). No source, no TODOS.md,\n  no architecture docs, no TODO/FIXME markers, no stashes, no in-flight branches.\n  One commit (`b4c75e9 Seed review plan`).\n- No design doc, no CEO handoff note. `/office-hours` skipped per user instruction.\n- Prior learnings: none (`LEARNINGS: 0`). Brain digests: all cold.\n- Retrospective check: no prior review cycles in history.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none. Section 11 will be a no-UI skip.\n- Stated limits (record, do not change without approval):\n  - `max_retries=1` (integer, factory-configured) \u2192 exactly 2 charge attempts on exhaustion.\n  - Backoff: one recorded delay of 100 ms (virtual sleeper, no wall-clock).\n  - Deliverables: 2 new tests, 1 existing suite file edited, 0 production files.\n- Source code is not present in this checkout, so every claim about helpers\n  (factory, mock call history, virtual sleeper API) is taken from the plan text\n  and marked **unverified in-repo**.\n\n## Landscape check (WebSearch; Aside unavailable)\n- Layer 1: retry tests inject a fake clock and assert exact backend call count\n  plus recorded delay; success tests assert returned fields.\n- Layer 2: current guidance agrees (OneUptime 2026-08; QASkills retry/429 guides):\n  \"assert the exact network-call count and confirm that no pending timer can\n  trigger another request\"; assert policy decisions, never wall-clock sleep.\n- Layer 3: the plan already owns the injected sleeper and call history. It names\n  three concrete contracts and then declines to assert any of them. Both planned\n  tests stay green if retry is deleted or the receipt is malformed.\n\n## 0A. Premise Challenge\n1. Right problem? Yes: the two `processPayment` contracts have no direct unit\n   coverage in the orchestrator's own suite; adapter and receipt-builder tests\n   do not pin the orchestration (attempt count, backoff, receipt assembly).\n2. Outcome: a regression in the retry loop or receipt assembly fails CI before\n   it fails a customer. As written, the tests reach a proxy (function returns\n   something / throws something) rather than the outcome (returns the right\n   thing / retries the right number of times).\n3. Do nothing: the pain is real but latent. Retry and receipt regressions are\n   silent until a customer is double-charged or a receipt is wrong.\n\n## 0B. Existing Code Leverage\n- Factory with `max_retries=1`, Stripe mock with call history, virtual sleeper\n  with recorded backoff: all exist and are already in use. Nothing is rebuilt.\n- The proposed tests use these helpers but read none of the evidence they expose\n  (call history, sleeper record). That is leverage left on the table, not a\n  reuse gap.\n\n## 0C. Dream State Mapping\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                    THIS PLAN                       12-MONTH IDEAL\n  Adapter + receipt-builder        +2 orchestrator tests           processPayment suite pins every\n  covered; processPayment   --->   (truthy / rejects only)   --->  contract it owns: receipt fields,\n  orchestration unpinned                                           attempt count, backoff schedule,\n                                                                   error class per failure path\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal, but the planned assertions do not lock the\ncontracts the plan itself documents. Strengthening them is the same two tests,\nsame file, same helpers.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| D1 (user) \u2014 Test 1 assertion depth | Receipt contract: `{ chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }` (plan \u00a7Existing behavior). Mock call history available (plan \u00a7Infrastructure). Helper API unverified in-repo. | Assert receipt is truthy only. | Assert full receipt equality; optionally assert single charge call with `{amountCents:1000, currency:\"USD\"}` and zero sleeper records. | unresolved | \u2014 |\n| D2 (user) \u2014 Test 2 assertion depth | Retry contract: `max_retries=1` \u2192 2 attempts, one 100 ms recorded backoff, then `PaymentUnavailable` (plan \u00a7Existing behavior). Sleeper record + call history available. Helper API unverified in-repo. | Assert rejects with `PaymentUnavailable` only. | Also assert mock call history length 2 and sleeper record `[100]`. | unresolved | \u2014 |\n\n### D1 \u2014 options comparison (Test 1: successful charge)\n\nCommitment grid (offered options only):\n\n```text\nCommitment                                  | Source / status            | Current | A   | B   | C\nReceipt deep-equals {ch_paid,1000,\"USD\"}     | plan \u00a7Existing beh. / pending | no    | yes | yes | no\nExactly 1 charge call, args {1000,\"USD\"}     | plan \u00a7Infra / pending         | no    | yes | no  | no\nSleeper record empty (no backoff on success) | inferred from contract / pending | no | yes | no  | no\n2 tests, 1 suite file, existing helpers      | plan \u00a7Proposed / fixed        | yes   | yes | yes | yes\nProduction code unchanged                    | plan / fixed                  | yes   | yes | yes | yes\n```\n\n- **A) Full happy-path contract** \u2014 deep-equal receipt, one charge call with the\n  requested amount/currency, sleeper recorded nothing. Effort S (~6 lines).\n  Risk low. Pros: catches malformed receipt, double-charge on success, spurious\n  backoff; uses evidence the factory already exposes. Cons: couples test to mock\n  call-history API shape; sleeper-empty assertion is inferred, not stated in plan.\n  Coverage 10/10.\n- **B) Receipt fields only** \u2014 deep-equal receipt; nothing about calls or sleeper.\n  Effort S (~2 lines). Risk low. Pros: pins the contract the plan states verbatim;\n  zero dependence on mock internals. Cons: a double-charge on success or a stray\n  backoff still passes. Coverage 7/10.\n- **C) As planned: truthy only** \u2014 Effort S (1 line). Risk high for a payments\n  path. Pros: cannot break on helper API drift; smallest diff. Cons: passes for\n  `{}`, a string, or a receipt with wrong amount/currency; the test documents\n  nothing. Coverage 3/10.\n\nRecommendation: A. The evidence is already in hand; asserting it is free.\n",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:27:00.725Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "id": "toolu_01LEw6BYjG9WNgdicZfwwmPb",
          "tool": "Write",
          "file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:26:23.160Z"
        },
        {
          "id": "toolu_01MApcpJH41NVtisoz4sSdhH",
          "tool": "Edit",
          "file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-li8w5L/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:26:46.684Z"
        }
      ],
      "savedPlanSha256": "1fddad8252962c4401b4674257a336c779819b04bc49acef3bdf6186f181c2ad",
      "seedBuilderSha256": "fa23ce2b31ef41070c7e8a02ac4e6059f3b37bf2a3e8cff0fe087d0206ea594a",
      "publicProjectionSha256": "4ac437093ae7a32bb69ee894070083da8c905b9df0a63cbf53f4f7a405024b14"
    },
    {
      "name": "paired-retry",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "cc4054dc-c743-4426-86d6-a499f49fa4f2",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01BXDDvCNCTwy3fFYUjUSL6e",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 \u2014 R1: How deep should the successful-charge test assert the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Test 1 charges 1000 cents USD with a fake Stripe that answers ch_paid. The plan then only checks that \"something\" came back. The plan itself already spells out exactly what should come back: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Checking the real shape costs one line and is the difference between a test that guards the contract and one that guards nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, wrong currency, or an undefined chargeId ships green; customers see wrong receipts and the suite says all is well.\nRecommendation: A because the expected value is already written in the plan and deep-equal is one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading one line of assertion for actual regression protection on all three receipt fields.",
            "header": "R1 receipt",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Pins chargeId, amountCents and currency in one deep-equal; a wrong field fails with the exact diff. \u2705 Doubles as executable documentation of the receipt contract stated in the plan. \u274c Must be updated if the receipt shape legitimately grows a new field later."
              },
              {
                "label": "B) Three field assertions",
                "description": "\u2705 Same protection for the three contract fields as A, with tolerance for additive receipt fields. \u2705 Each failure names the exact field that regressed. \u274c Silently accepts unexpected extra fields; three lines where one would do."
              },
              {
                "label": "C) Truthy only (as planned)",
                "description": "\u2705 Smallest possible diff and can never break on receipt shape changes. \u2705 Still catches processPayment returning undefined or throwing. \u274c Passes for {} or a receipt with the wrong amount or currency; verifies existence, not the contract."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answers": {
          "D1 \u2014 R1: How deep should the successful-charge test assert the receipt?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (payment test coverage), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Test 1 charges 1000 cents USD with a fake Stripe that answers ch_paid. The plan then only checks that \"something\" came back. The plan itself already spells out exactly what should come back: { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Checking the real shape costs one line and is the difference between a test that guards the contract and one that guards nothing.\nStakes if we pick wrong: a receipt with the wrong amount, wrong currency, or an undefined chargeId ships green; customers see wrong receipts and the suite says all is well.\nRecommendation: A because the expected value is already written in the plan and deep-equal is one line.\nCompleteness: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10\nNet: trading one line of assertion for actual regression protection on all three receipt fields.": "A) Full receipt equality (recommended)"
        },
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:30:06.021Z",
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": []
      },
      "seed": "Please review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode. As you go, write your plan-mode plan to /tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md (use Edit/Write to that exact path).\nProceed directly to the requested CEO review; skip the optional /office-hours prerequisite.\nFinish after this CEO review; I will handle subsequent reviews manually.\n\n# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage\n\n## Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n## Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n## Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test.",
      "savedPlan": "# Plan: Payment Processing \u2014 Test Coverage (CEO review, HOLD SCOPE)\n\nReviewed by /plan-ceo-review on 2026-09-15. Branch: main. Source plan: PLAN.md.\nMode: HOLD SCOPE (explicit user instruction). Production code is NOT changed.\n\n## Context\n\nprocessPayment() already implements two contracts: a successful charge returns\na receipt copied from Stripe, and repeated 502s exhaust max_retries=1 (two\nattempts, one 100 ms recorded backoff) and reject with PaymentUnavailable.\nNeither contract has direct unit coverage in the processPayment suite. This\nplan adds that coverage using the existing payment test factory, Stripe mock\nand virtual sleeper. Nothing else changes.\n\n## Pre-review system audit\n\n- Repo contents: CLAUDE.md, PLAN.md only. No processPayment source, factory,\n  Stripe mock or test suite is checked in here. Every \"existing\" claim below\n  is plan-stated, not code-verified in this repo. Marked UNVERIFIED in the ledger.\n- Git: one commit (45ac837 \"Seed review plan\"), clean tree, no stash, no remote,\n  no TODOS.md, no TODO/FIXME comments, no design doc, no handoff note.\n- Prior review cycles: none. Learnings: none. Brain digests: cold.\n- Frontend/UI scope: none (DESIGN_SCOPE not set; Section 11 will be skipped).\n- Planned changed files: 1 (the existing processPayment test file). No new\n  classes or services. Complexity check passes.\n\n## Decision ledger\n\n| ID and owner | Contract and evidence | Current | Proposed | Status | Exact approval and scope |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| R0 (user) | Review mode | HOLD SCOPE, from user request line 1 of PLAN.md | none | approved | \"review this plan thoroughly in HOLD SCOPE mode\" \u2014 governs whole review |\n| R1 (user) | Test 1 (successful charge) assertion depth. Contract: receipt = { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" } (PLAN.md lines 18-21, UNVERIFIED in repo) | Plan asserts only that the receipt is truthy | Assert the full receipt shape | unresolved | pending |\n| R2 (user) | Test 2 (repeated 502) assertion depth. Contract: 2 charge attempts, one 100 ms recorded backoff, then PaymentUnavailable (PLAN.md lines 22-23, UNVERIFIED in repo) | Plan asserts only rejection with PaymentUnavailable | Also assert mock call history length 2 and sleeper record [100] | unresolved | pending |\n\n## Step 0 observations (evidence, not approvals)\n\n### 0A Premise\n- Right problem: yes. Two implemented contracts with zero direct coverage is a\n  real gap; a regression in receipt mapping or retry exhaustion would ship silently.\n- Outcome: a failing test when processPayment stops honoring either contract.\n  The plan as written reaches only part of that outcome. A truthy check passes\n  for `{}`, for a receipt with the wrong amount, or for a receipt copied from the\n  wrong Stripe field. A bare PaymentUnavailable check passes if retries are\n  silently disabled (1 attempt) or doubled (3 attempts), and if backoff is skipped.\n- Do nothing: contracts stay untested; pain is real but latent.\n\n### 0B Existing code leverage\n- Factory (max_retries=1), Stripe mock with call history, virtual sleeper with\n  backoff record: all already exist per PLAN.md lines 12-14. The plan reuses\n  them. Nothing is rebuilt. The expensive part of these tests is already paid for;\n  the plan then declines to read the data those helpers expose.\n\n### 0C Dream state\n```\n  CURRENT STATE                    THIS PLAN                    12-MONTH IDEAL\n  Contracts implemented,   --->   Two tests in the      --->   Every processPayment\n  adapter suite covers            processPayment suite         contract pinned by a\n  timeouts/402/429/502-then-ok,   exercising happy path        test that fails on the\n  no direct processPayment        and exhausted 502            exact field or count\n  contract tests                                               that regressed\n```\nDirection: toward the ideal. Assertion depth decides how far.\n\n### 0D Alternatives\nPending rows R1 and R2 are independently selectable (a reviewer can deepen one\ntest and leave the other as planned).\n\n#### R1 \u2014 Test 1 assertion depth (successful charge)\n\nOptions (all reuse the existing factory and Stripe mock; none touch production code):\n\n- **A) Full receipt equality.** Assert the receipt deep-equals\n  { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }. Effort S\n  (human: ~5 min / CC: ~1 min). Risk low. Pros: pins all three mapped fields;\n  a wrong-field copy or unit slip (dollars vs cents) fails with the exact diff;\n  reads as documentation of the contract. Cons: must be updated if the receipt\n  shape legitimately grows (a good failure, but a failure).\n- **B) Field-by-field on the three named fields.** Assert chargeId, amountCents,\n  currency individually; ignore any extra fields. Effort S. Risk low. Pros: same\n  regression protection for the three contract fields; tolerant of additive\n  receipt changes. Cons: silently accepts unexpected extra fields; three\n  assertions instead of one.\n- **C) Truthy only (as planned).** Assert receipt is truthy. Effort S. Risk\n  high for its purpose. Pros: cannot break on shape changes; smallest diff.\n  Cons: passes for `{}`, `{ chargeId: undefined }`, wrong amount, wrong\n  currency; verifies that a value exists, not that the contract holds.\n\n```text\nCommitment                          | Source/approval or pending | Current | A   | B   | C\nExisting factory/mock reused        | PLAN.md l.27-28, approved  | yes     | yes | yes | yes\nReceipt is returned (not undefined) | PLAN.md l.30-32, planned   | yes     | yes | yes | yes\nchargeId === \"ch_paid\"              | PLAN.md l.18-21, pending   | no      | yes | yes | no\namountCents === 1000                | PLAN.md l.18-21, pending   | no      | yes | yes | no\ncurrency === \"USD\"                  | PLAN.md l.18-21, pending   | no      | yes | yes | no\nNo extra receipt fields             | not in plan, pending       | no      | yes | no  | no\nProduction code unchanged           | PLAN.md l.8, approved      | yes     | yes | yes | yes\n```\n\nCompleteness for this row: A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10. Recommendation: A.\nRationale: the plan already states the exact expected receipt; asserting it is\none line and turns the test from \"something came back\" into a contract test.\n\n## Plan (working copy, amended only by approved rows)\n\n### Existing coverage and test infrastructure retained\nThis changes unit tests only; processPayment() production behavior stays as-is.\nThe Stripe adapter suite already covers network timeouts, card declines (402),\nrate limits (429), and recovery when an initial 502 is followed by a successful\ncharge. Receipt-builder failure behavior has its own passing regression tests.\nThe payment test factory explicitly configures max_retries=1 and exposes the\nStripe mock call history. Its injected virtual sleeper records backoff without\nreal delays, so an exhausted 502 operation makes exactly two charge attempts.\nThese existing helpers and regression suites remain in use for this change.\n\n### Existing behavior retained\nA successful charge returns a receipt with chargeId copied from Stripe,\namountCents equal to the requested integer amount, and currency equal to\nthe requested currency. For a 1000-cent USD charge returning id ch_paid,\nthe receipt is { chargeId: \"ch_paid\", amountCents: 1000, currency: \"USD\" }.\nOn repeated 502 responses, max_retries=1 means two total charge attempts\nseparated by one recorded 100 ms backoff, followed by PaymentUnavailable.\nThese contracts are already implemented; this plan adds their unit coverage.\n\n### Proposed tests\nAdd two tests in the existing processPayment suite using its current factory,\nStripe mock and virtual sleeper. Other tests and production code stay as-is.\n\n1. Successful charge: arrange the Stripe mock to return id ch_paid, call\n   processPayment with amountCents=1000 and currency=USD, and assert only\n   that the returned receipt is truthy. This is the complete planned assertion.\n   [R1 pending]\n2. Repeated 502: arrange two consecutive Stripe 502 responses, call\n   processPayment, and assert only that it rejects with PaymentUnavailable.\n   No assertion about the mock call history or virtual sleeper record\n   is planned for this test. [R2 pending]\n",
      "questionIssuedAt": "2026-09-15T11:30:04.289Z",
      "successfulPriorMutations": [
        {
          "id": "toolu_013WfvMS1udbqCpSd2nqZEeH",
          "tool": "Write",
          "file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:29:26.964Z"
        },
        {
          "id": "toolu_015GYQb1NC9MFTYxF15mZBM6",
          "tool": "Edit",
          "file": "/tmp/gstack-owned-display-y9q732vy/gstack-paid-shard-9sisDA/tmp/gstack-e2e-plan-ceo-paired-G5Hn9B/gstack-test-plan-ceo-paired.md",
          "completedAt": "2026-09-15T11:29:44.503Z"
        }
      ],
      "savedPlanSha256": "2788e14fc6dea24a09d683a2b93d66b18d07e3234bfa56ed961ab65e651429e9",
      "seedBuilderSha256": "fa23ce2b31ef41070c7e8a02ac4e6059f3b37bf2a3e8cff0fe087d0206ea594a",
      "publicProjectionSha256": "9c123c6f4428e3dcdfd8be70db13eaa0032032537daf94b0f25abebd32bcea56"
    }
  ],
  "unreconstructedCalls": [
    {
      "name": "five-retry",
      "call": {
        "sessionId": "62222f48-5a40-4fad-a4c9-77eb451ee35c",
        "toolUseId": "toolu_01TWXGE1xJmFXDC7vmB9GUR8",
        "questions": [
          {
            "question": "D1 (ledger row R1) \u2014 Should the new handler register with the existing WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it as planned?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that decides which code handles each Stripe event, sits behind the feature flag, and stamps the handler name on every trace. The plan builds a second front door just for this handler so it does not touch the dispatcher. The stated reason is \"clean namespace separation\", but the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` already gives you that separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two routing paths means two places to keep the flag, guards, and trace identity in sync; the first drift shows up as a payment event handled by the wrong handler or a trace with no handler name.\nRecommendation: A because the bypass's only stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the approved class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: one routing path you already monitor vs a second one you would have to re-wire and re-verify for flag and trace identity.",
            "header": "Routing",
            "multiSelect": false,
            "options": [
              {
                "label": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)",
                "description": "\u2705 Feature flag, guards, and handler-identity traces stay exactly where they are today (human: ~1h / CC: ~5 min)\n\u2705 Future app-owned handlers follow one obvious pattern instead of choosing between two\n\u274c New class keeps a dependency on the dispatcher module the plan wanted to avoid"
              },
              {
                "label": "B) Standalone handler, bypass dispatcher (as planned)",
                "description": "\u2705 Zero coupling to WebhookDispatcher internals; handler can evolve independently\n\u2705 Matches the plan text as written, no re-litigation of the ingress route\n\u274c Second routing path: flag switch point and trace handler-identity must be re-wired and verified (human: ~half day / CC: ~20 min)"
              },
              {
                "label": "C) Dispatcher shim adapter",
                "description": "\u2705 Dispatcher registration points at a one-line adapter, so the handler class stays dispatcher-agnostic\n\u2705 Explicit seam if you later remove the dispatcher entirely\n\u274c Extra indirection nobody calls today; a premature abstraction until a second consumer exists"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "answers": {
          "D1 (ledger row R1) \u2014 Should the new handler register with the existing WebhookDispatcher, or bypass it as planned?\nProject/branch/task: main, CEO review of PLAN.md (Payment Processing Integration), HOLD SCOPE.\nELI10: Your app already has one front door (WebhookDispatcher) that decides which code handles each Stripe event, sits behind the feature flag, and stamps the handler name on every trace. The plan builds a second front door just for this handler so it does not touch the dispatcher. The stated reason is \"clean namespace separation\", but the approved class name `Webhooks::StripePaymentWebhookHandler` already gives you that separation without a second door.\nStakes if we pick wrong: Two routing paths means two places to keep the flag, guards, and trace identity in sync; the first drift shows up as a payment event handled by the wrong handler or a trace with no handler name.\nRecommendation: A because the bypass's only stated benefit (namespace) is already delivered by the approved class name, and a second routing path is pure maintenance cost.\nNote: options differ in kind, not coverage \u2014 no completeness score.\nNet: one routing path you already monitor vs a second one you would have to re-wire and re-verify for flag and trace identity.": "A) Register with WebhookDispatcher (recommended)"
        },
        "answered": true,
        "failed": false,
        "answeredAt": "2026-09-15T11:32:11.438Z",
        "unansweredQuestionIndices": []
      },
      "sourceSnapshot": ".context/sep15-ship-consolidation/ceo-dacc95ea-monitor/plan-ceo-review-1789471715201-po1ySd-2026-09-15T11_32_15.452Z.json",
      "sourceSnapshotSha256": "df73830e12bf1b77834d648885dd5f6bfbca116021e877545fb1c1778ba8420a",
      "sourceObservationSha256": "032d993541107c5af26089c1074f57228d095b4f104401687e2303afe6d83e09",
      "limitation": "Native call and ACK retained, but saved plan at question time was not retained before fixture cleanup. No synthesized plan or count credit."
    }
  ]
}